@flowingblades That’s the kind thing that sort of person would never demand that women have to do, so I was being charitable and assuming ignorance instead of sexist hypocrisy.
Men’s Rights Advocates will go on and on about how they think a woman is going to trap them in to a pregnancy (why not get male birth control then?) but in reality, men are more likely to try to trap women to stay with them with a forced/unwanted pregnancy.
There’s even a whole fetish for forced impregnation.
1. Citation on the numbers or admitting you’re just estimating them, please. There are places where women discuss doing this sort of thing to men as well and it is similarly not seen as wrong locally.
2. What male birth control? A recent study for male hormonal birth control was cancelled due to side effects, vasalgel has not arrived in the West yet (but there was crowdfunding that some MRAs may have contributed to IIRC), and vasectomies are still fairly permanent. Condoms are the existing male birth control that is actually available to men.
3. Women have more options if this happens than men do. You have not actually defeated the MRA point that women have more reproductive rights (in the West) than men do.
4. It most likely is not MRAs doing this.
5. By making it adversarial, you have avoided the space where an actual gender-neutral law could get broader support to prohibit the practice in both directions, which MRAs would like, as well as the moral upper ground. Of course, once that hit the news it would spawn a few national conversations about women that weren’t particularly flattering, but the lack of those conversations is contributing both to what you would call “misogyny” and to the creation of MRAs.
6. No seriously, why are you making this adversarial, burning political energy on fighting men that would be okay with a law banning it instead of men that wouldn’t? You won’t demobilize MRAs with “women are the real victims, male suffering doesn’t matter” type stuff, you won’t prevent the creation of more MRAs, you won’t make passage of a law banning the practice more likely (and if you did make it more likely that would prove misandry on the part of society), all it does is provide reason to oppose something that shouldn’t really be opposed or, being more uncharitable here, prevent conversations where we find out how many women really think like this (enabling us to overcome that and educate them) and maybe spreading from that conversations about why.
I posted this as a comment over at Ozy’s blog, but I figured it was a long enough ramble that it might as well be a tumblr post. Cut because it’s yet another post about incels and Nice Guys and all that stuff you don’t want to read yet another post about
I’ve always believed that the grain of truth to “girls only go for assholes” culture is that…people who see this spectrum aren’t completely wrong.
In the world we live in, the world of Schrodinger’s Rapist, putting yourself out there at all is kind of an asshole move. Men (if they’re decent and paying attention) are aware that many women are sick of male attention, any male attention with a sexual bent, and that hitting on someone in any way has a strong potential to make that person really unhappy or uncomfortable, especially if you have poor social skills or trouble reading people.
If you’re aware that any attempt to make a romantic or sexual connection could really easily end up threatening and unpleasant, then you have a clear moral imperative to never hit on anyone. And therefore you’re alone, and you see people who do hit on people (assholes by definition) succeeding in their romantic endeavours, which leads to bitterness and resentment against both the “assholes” and against the women who “reward their behavior,” their behavior being “having the temerity to ever approach anyone.”
this is also what leads otherwise-decent people into “friendzone” thinking: approaching people in explicitly platonic ways doesn’t incur this worry that you’ll hurt them or make them uncomfortable with your attention. (This is of course contrary to reality: friendly approach by someone who gives you the heebie-jeebies is probably going to cause a lot more distress than a socially-competent pass. But I think this is the construction going on in their heads.) Because these people see themselves as performing the correct and moral actions of never subjecting women to explicitly sexual attention, they end up feeling like they deserve a reward.
i guess the point I’m trying to make is, I completely agree with your post and find it very illuminating, but I question the central thesis that there is a complete qualitative disconnect between the confidence of decent human behavior and the confidence of asshole hypermasculinity. existing as a man in patriarchal society means that acting with even a baseline, moderate level of confidence can make you a threatening figure.
People complain about the men posting anime girls, but I’m pretty sure half of those men would push the button to become anime girls if the option were available, regardless of whether they admit to it.
To expand a bit, it’s clear to me at this point that I do have dysphoria, physical and socio-emotional, but I don’t think that I’m trans in any meaningful sense.
Becoming a guy emphatically does not feel like a solution or a goal. It feels like a whole other giant sack of trouble I don’t want. One which would be even more difficult to execute on and maintain because I don’t have the experience or expertise or fluency in it that I do with this one, and I’d have to outsource key infrastructure which would involve a lot of overhead and basic insecurity,.and let’s not even get into the brand equity, personal, professional, relational, etc costs of transition like holy fucking shit, and I don’t even want this? I don’t have this vision of how if things were just different I could be a guy and it would be right-feeling and comfortable and authentic. It wouldn’t. It’d just be more performance, and I’d be considerably worse at it.
That doesn’t make it any more comfortable to be permanently trapped in a Jessica Rabbit flesh-and-bone costume, but you don’t get to fix that unless you want to be a guy and frankly the available technologies for it aren’t that goddamn great even if you do..
What I really-really want is to not have all this unbelievably extra anatomy. It’s wrong-feeling, infrastructurally unsound, painful, inconvenient, unaesthetic and a huge pain in my ass. (Secondarily it would be nice to not have my gender be the screamingly obtrusive most noticeable thing about my body so the misogynists can tell from 200 feet away who to de-agentize and make jump through extra hoops and I can’t go outside at night without fear and etc, but if it were just that and not any of the physical stuff I think I could write this off as internalized misogyny. Unfortunately the physical stuff is worse.). And if I thought transition would really solve all of those problems and I could magic it by hitting a button, then yeah, it’d be the least-worst option, but I don’t think it would, and there isn’t a magic button, and “least-worst” just doesn’t feel like grounds for pursuing it.
Seriously, though, have you considered perhaps you’re non-binary gendered and just want a body that reflects that?
I think it probably does net out to nonbinary. But “nonbinary” doesn’t seem to pull much problem-solving weight semantically or practically. Then what? Do solutions follow?
I know how this plays out. I’m bi/pan, and in my actual life that has washed up mostly as “not entitled to claim to be gay so living a superficially straight life while feeling bad and stuck and angry and bitter about it but also still alienated from queerness so whatever,” and I can already feel this going the same way but I don’t know what to do differently. Trans stuff in 2017 is about where sexuality stuff was in 1987 and there’s a reason that that went the way it did for me. And it feels higher-stakes to act on anything or claim a label wrt gender than sexuality, and we’ve established that I am a wuss.
And again, what’s the prize? There are no super great solutions out there to go claim. Hip reduction surgery doesn’t exist, T is a goddamn injectable because FDA said no to pills and all the effects I want are reversible, late, require major effort to support etc and all the effects that are permanent and reasonably quick are the ones I’m meh or wary of, and I probably couldn’t even get it on a nonbinary basis, IDK. (I talked to someone on here who has T gel and also E and an endocrinologist sympathetic to hormonal experimentation and was like, ooooh, but that’s a rough fucking goal to target, like, Endocrinologist Georg is an outlier adn should not have been sought)
This resonates with me very strongly. Particularly the “I think I would not fit in in exactly the opposite way if I lived as a man” part.
I feel like if I lived in a society that had a “female masculine” gender, like some cultures do, I would uncomplicatedly consider myself that gender. I’d probably at least try hormones IF the society would still recognize me as that gender.
I do not think I want to be seen as a guy. I think I want to try masculinizing my body to see if it brings my body more in line with my internal map, because I think it might.
I know that in my current culture I have the option of calling myself nonbinary, and I did for a while. But my mind associates nonbinary with a particular kind of cultural/social role (and most especially a role tied to a youth culture that I don’t identify with) that doesn’t match what I think I am very well.
I’m relating very much to this conversation. My relationship to sex and gender is also totally incompatible with a lot of the more popular queer theory (albeit for slightly different reasons to the above posters).
Like, the Right Thing to do these days in young queer circles is to minimise the relevance of biological sex (to the point of saying it doesn’t exist and that bodies can’t be gendered), and augment gender as this important aspect of your self that has nothing to do with your body, and that you sort of feel your way to.
… But my self-concept of gender is tied entirely to my body. know I’m a woman because I am biologically female and don’t (with a possible slight exception*) experience gender dysphoria. However, I’ve never had any real desire to feel ‘girly’, ‘feminine’, or ‘womanly’, gendered social treatment is something that I wish would get away from me forever, and I couldn’t even begin to guess how I’d respond in one of those hypothetical scenarios involving waking up in a male body. So, if “birth sex is irrelevant, gender is important and all about feels” becomes the status quo, then, well,… good luck navigating that, me.
Of course, I understand that the “birth sex irrelevant, gender important, bodies aren’t gendered” construct exists because its helpful to some people. I’m increasingly seeing all this as a competing access needs issue, not between cis and trans people (as many are prone to construe it), but between people who have a strong internal sense of gender which is separate to their body, and those whose sense of gender is very tied to their body. Group A needs “bodies aren’t gendered, your breasts and vagina are male if you want them to be”, and group B needs “Your gender= your birth sex + presence or absence of dysphoria”. And I’d imagine there are also a lot of people who’d prefer something in between the two, or an entirely different metric.
*This exception is muscle strength (or lack of it). This can’t be fixed on it’s own, and I don’t think identifying as a different gender would make me feel any more comfortable about it (it may even make me feel worse). It’s also the only sex characteristic I’m uncomfortable with, so I feel the cause is more likely to be related to my discomfort with feeling weak, or with gender roles/expectations, than discomfort with my sex.
This makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve never disputed whether I’m female. I’m not entirely sure what doing that would even mean.
I have and do wonder if I am happiest in an unmodified body, and I also know the connection between my unmodified body and “femininity” is part of the problem for me.
It seems very easy for the queer theory kids to say gender, expression, and bodies don’t link. But I still can’t seem to UNLINK mine.
I don’t think demanding that others deny the physical realities of our bodies is a legitimate access need.
I’m… I don’t know.
Like, I really really have trouble with “biology is cissexist,” when the reason “male” and “female” exist as classifications is not JUST to talk about social constructs but also to talk about reproductive capability. I can’t get past that.
But I also don’t have a problem with someone who isn’t saying “any body is male or female if you just say so” and is saying something more like “well my body is not the paradigmatic male body, but hormones and surgery have altered it enough that I feel comfortable calling it good.”
I don’t want to take that second thing away from people. But the first thing baffles me.
Everytime an anti-sj/”skeptical”/whatever says that using the right pronouns for trans people is a matter of courtesy I want to scream in the void
What’s wrong with saying it’s about respect/courtesy?
if it is about respect, then you misgender people you don’t respect (as we see SJ do to any outside The In Clique) and then accurate pronouns are something you must earn by adherence to their ideology
It’s about winning the local battle (pronouns), since it’s easier than winning the war (trans is legit), and maybe if the local battle is won people will go easier.
I’m not sure it matters. Feminism-the-political-movement and its institutional power is sexist to the point of classifying “forced envelopment” as something other than rape, denies biology (and I don’t mean “lol trans isn’t real” I mean “hormones aren’t a placebo”), is pretty messed up and out-of-sync with people on sex (explicit-verbal-consent-at-every-point for example is not how people, particularly most women, actually want it), effectively denies there are consequences to sexual liberalism, and so on.
They don’t appear to actually believe in female agency, either.
And they publish articles like “MRAs hated Mad Max Fury Road!”, even though if you travel into the MRA viper nest to check, the local MRAs are all “??? what” at this accusation.
The question, I think, is why they hate it so much to lie about it like that. And I think the reason is because the MRA narrative, at least, is not Traditionalism or Feminism, even though it required both of those to come into existence. It’s the first challenge to their stranglehold on the gender narrative in some time, and controlling the gender narrative is very valuable politically.
The MRA narrative isn’t spot-on either, but because it contains things Feminism deliberately ignored, it has room to grow, just like Feminism had room to grow due to what Traditionalism ignored.
I also believe it’s a symptom of a looming Male Gender Meltdown that Feminism thinks it wants but is too self-absorbed to carry out. Like, the Alt Right should not be so full of self-identified “traps”, Bronies were scorched but aren’t compatible with the Feminist/Traditionalist model either, and so on. These are symptoms, I think, of a situation which has not yet exploded, but the point of criticality is slowly being reached and it’s going to look very strange and I don’t think the cishet neurotypical women are going to like it.
And? That critical point may arrive just as affordable tissue engineering does.
criminal minds episode about PUAs in the background lel
they are discussing incels this is great
Yeah this is kind of a boring episode because it’s basically a cartoonish version of Elliot Rodger and “doesn’t the manosphere suck guys am i rite”
The manosphere absolutely does suck, but Rodger is more interesting than this guy and his problems aren’t on the level of “the internet told me to hate women so I do”
They’ve done this before. I wrote a GUI in Visual Basic to prove it. More seriously a more naunced take would be less Feminist-mainstream. The Manosphere, for all its flaws, is hated because it’s a rival for the dominant gender narrative that is gaining ground. Shakily, it’s true, but almost inevitably since Feminism is missing entire chunks of reality.
Bad Ending: Chelsea Clinton 2020, Misogyny and Berniebros Prevented Hillary From Going to Michigan
True Ending: Emanuel/Bloomberg 2020, We didn’t learn shit my dude
Golden Ending: Jeb!
@ranma-official: “should’ve pokemon gone to Michigan” is better imo
I just like the combination of noticing they’d be foolish enough to do something like running Chelsea, with the distant dream, the far timeline, beyond 1% divergence, where Jeb! manages to become the President.
So Gavin McInnes and Kyle Chapman are putting together an American Freikorps right now and lefties still think that “punch a nazi” and endorsing antifa/black bloc is a viable tactic
hold on to your butts lads
Prediction: This will increase, rather than decrease, Antifa activity, because Antifa are that clueless.
You have woken up to find yourself in the body of a professional gamer and you now have to keep their YouTube channel running. The problem is that you don’t know anything about the gamer and you don’t know how to play video games at all.
Can you read all your posts under “gender politics” tag and truthfully say that you want to live when the life is like that? I couldn't.
Dearest Anon-kun,
My representation is a bit more dire than how I actually interpret the situation, in part because it’s intended as a counter-balance to mainstream feminism, which strips women of their agency and refuses to critically examine their role in the social dynamics which create these situations.
“Women are powerless” is really quite deeply normalized almost everywhere! It’s very insidious.
Comments regarding even cishet neurotypical women should be regarded as generalizations that do not uniformly apply to the population, and many subgroups don’t necessarily fit them. Additionally, low-status women also exist. In fact, women that don’t fit this mold are more common in my subcultures!
Additionally,
1) I have a reasonable shot at making it to the Transhuman era.
2) I have a close relationship to my ex WRT expressed vulnerability & female companionship, though not sexually.
3) Have you observed the number of self-identified “traps” and other such individuals among the Alt Right? I believe this represents a sign of an impending Male Gender Meltdown, the consequences of which are hard to predict. Overall, I do think progress is being made, as indicated by the appearance of multiple male gender movements.
Also,
All my exes are bisexual (and therefore have no set reason to behave in a certain pattern of attraction), and this blog will continue to not disclose my sex/gender.
Kind Regards, Miti
P.S. If you are secretly the tumblr user known as BA, this blog hopes for your swift recovery regardless of whether that is low in probability. If you are secretly tumblr user RO, this blog hopes for an increase in your available useful energy.
Look, I don’t need milk delivered straight from the cow to me every morning, but if you could get it from the cow to me in less than two weeks I’d take it
“Cow Trucks” Hottest New Craze in Fab Food Popularity Soars in Hip San Francisco Neighborhoods by Cauhip Sterman - June 17, 2024
The days of the antiquated Texmex food truck will soon be behind us, ushered out by the new startup Uddare. The venture, which has backing from Google, Microsoft, and various Bay Area venture capitalists, was started by young Nigerian immigrant Oluwa Ishan with only a single cow and a rusted out Ford 150, but has quickly amassed a fleet of 17 vehicles which are dispatched via app to the most popular neighborhoods in the city…
If that 3-d printed house business plan doesn’t work out, I’ll have to go with my next idea. It’s like a Keurig, but for milk.
keurig’s already a keurig for milk, if you jam one of those creamer pots onto the hopper
I’m not sure that creamer pots meet the freshness desires of my customers.
You’re stepping on my new startup idea, which involves using quadcopter drones to deliver milk and fresh coffee-creamer to the doors of upper-middle-class professionals every morning. It’s called Miruku (ミルク) and it’s based on a hot new trend of air-based robotic milk delivery in Japan*.
(*Don’t tell anyone this isn’t actually a thing in Japan or I’ll sue you.)
Weird how “I prefer to date intelligent women” and “I prefer to date women with a high IQ” have totally different levels of social desirability.
The former conceals the fact that the latter may not apply to the woman reading it. That’s why one is Feminism but the other is Low-Status Male.
No, that’s not how I see it at all. IQ isn’t the same thing as intelligence! It’s just a measure of it, not the thing itself; and presumably it’s intelligence that you actually value, not the measure of it. Like, even if you believe that IQ tests are flawless instruments that always measure intelligence accurately, and measure exactly the same intelligence-concept that you’re valuing—you can entertain the possibility that you’re mistaken about this, and that actually it would be possible for two people to get scores on IQ tests in the reverse order from their actual intelligences. In such a counterfactual scenario, it’d surely be the actually more intelligent person you’d prefer, not the one who got the higher score. So, unless your preferences are really weird, “I prefer to date intelligent women” is the accurate statement, and “I prefer to date women with a high IQ” is just wrong. Of course this’d just be a nitpick if everybody agreed that IQ tests were basically unproblematic measures of intelligence, but… they don’t, so the casual conflation of IQ and intelligence is naturally going to annoy people who don’t agree that the two things are more or less the same.
And even somebody who’s happy to regard IQ as just a synonym of “intelligence” might observe that it’s a rather technical way of saying “intelligence”; why not just use the everyday English word? Using needlessly technical vocabulary generally comes across as obnoxious.
I admit I was being a bit snarky due to the Feminist movement’s bad habit of ending up as part of a gender-based status war.
Most people think that they are some level of intelligent, especially the sort of cishet women who identify as feminist IME. However, most people don’t have high IQs.
The male neckbeard, by specifying a way that intelligence can be studied with some reliability, not only exposes this disconnect, but also has the nerve to place himself higher on the status hierarchy by demanding it - higher than he deserves, for this focus on such things is often done by unhygenic or awkward people! He’s supposed to recognize his low status and show sufficient deference.
And what’s more, many people who don’t think they measure up on other qualities use intelligence as their last bastion of defense of the ego. Most of them probably don’t need to, but society can be pretty harsh.
So you have all that, plus Feminism doesn’t like men deciding their own standards. Plus the other stuff.
Regardless of their consciously endorsed ideologies, I don’t think most people would either; and, moreover, longer implied time horizons mean that investment in changing things would be worth it to more people.
Capitalism under capitalists who don’t die makes it approach even further towards rule by vampire lords. Immortality might tempt a lot of people to think of themselves as temporarily embarassed millionaires but knowledge that they’re not will approach an asymptote.
So if you abolished death tomorrrow, whether for the few or the many, I’m skeptical that it would last.
The same actually applies to basically all institutions and social forms. Religion as it currently exists is clearly not built for it. Family/kinship structures, also slot into that. If you’ve read Benedict Anderson you know that the nation-state is just a giant gothy macabre death cult.
Thinking about this makes me a lot more positive towards death abolition (leaving aside all concerns of feasibility etc, which are obviously separate.) This is all sort of inspired by someone very reasonably pointing out that abolishing death would, regardless of anything else, create a whole bunch of problems. But it would also create problems for our problems!
What’s this about nation-states being death-cults?
All states are death cults where the mana of the sovereign and his ritual connection to the land have to be renewed through showing his power to deal death, but nation-states are especially goth because nations are presented as (1) an organic unity not just of people now but of the living, the dead, and the yet unborn, (2) renewed by the willingness to die, which acts as a vehicle for (3) immortality through honor of the war dead. Nationalism isn’t especially unique in having death as a product - liberalism piles up corpses, communism piles up corpses, traditional modes of legitimation pile up corpses, and probably radical nationalists are worse than any of those per capita, but what’s qualitatively different is that the language of nationalism is all death all the time, too. It’s all events where people died, their willingness to die, how we’ll avenge them, tombs of unknown soldiers, immortality through memorialization and through our children carrying on those traditions, etc etc.
Eh, the thing is all states and all ideologies must be willing to use force, and willing to kill, in order to enforce themselves in a world where other ideologies are willing to do the same. The idea of an Anarchist utopia is nothing more than a fantasy that will never come to pass, since the blank slate theory isn’t true and you’ll always have some individuals who don’t want it - either they must be brainwashed or they must be suppressed, and in either case this response will need to be organized and fairly uniform to work.
So in this sense, Nationalism isn’t actually special, so this doesn’t feel like some new insight to me, rather than yet another attempt to wear down the nation-state. What it comes down to is that you have to be willing to get people to fight. If you fall below a certain level of Nationalism it becomes difficult to field a volunteer army. Talking about noble sacrifices and making monuments to war dead is part of it. How many people would fight for a polity that went “lol no this country sucks and if you fight to preserve it you’re trash so we’re going to forget about you the minute you die haha”?
He suggested that the cause of white nationalism might require the dissolution of college and professional sports. “There are tons of reasons for being highly skeptical of sports in America,” Spencer told me. “The reason that is uniquely identitarian is that, at a major college, you end up having white people rooting for black athletes that they would otherwise have nothing to do with.”
Richard Spencer tho
So the left hates sports because it’s simple bread and circuses to keep the masses from noticing that they’re exploited by the bourgeois.
The intelligentsia hates sports because it’s below their level.
And the right now, too, hates sports because too many black athletes compete?
Somehow I don’t think this will catch on among the right-wingers that don’t despise black people on a conscious level.
Discussions about ISIS, especially right-wing ones that immediately jump the discussions to “Beheadings and evil!”, and more specifically that thing that @afloweroutofstone just posted and I don’t want to stretch that post even longer, but they always remind me of that Think Tree song The Living Room: a seeming refusal to conceptualize of anything bigger than one person doing something to another. “You stole my job.” “They beheaded him,” etc., with either no conception of larger political and economic forces or anything more than two weeks ago, or a refusal to conceive of these larger forces because they undermine the immediacy of the gut appeal. “Just keep the sound of the mortar fire far from me / don’t want to have to close the windows here in my room”.
Yeah, and I think also wrt to that topic there’s a tendency to overestimate threats associated with explicit malice, which is part of what makes terrorism especially distressing. Except under pretty extreme circumstances, people are more threatened by their own state (whether local or national) than by virtually any other group, even if the state is interested in their welfare while the other groups want them dead, simply because the state has so huge a role in their lives that small compromises, mistakes, and betrayals have enormous repercussions, whereas the groups that want people dead tend to have a hard time getting the leverage to do comparable levels of damage.
But people are always willing to increase the threat the state poses to them in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, because psychologically the character of the threats matters more than their magnitude. “Statistically, you have more to fear from a powerful and disinterested bureaucracy than from mad bombers who hate you” is never going to work as a line of argument, whether or not it’s true.
It might have more sticking power if it weren’t often followed by “therefore, we should bring in tens of thousands of immigrants from cultures that still practice honor killings and FGM”.
Wait, Murray suggested UBI as a solution to what The Bell Curve suggested? Huh, that does seem reasonable, but I guess from an r/K perspective it seems kind of flawed
Apparently he wrote a whole book about instituting basic income as an alternative to the existing welfare system. Since he hasn’t abandoned The Bell Curve, I think it follows that that’s his response to the matter. I wasn’t sure on this, but I saw a clip of him advocating $10k for income plus $3k for healthcare the other day.
I’m not sure it’s an ideal policy (I think wage subsidies are likely a better option), but one must admit that giving the group you supposedly hate unconditional money transfers is not very Fascist behavior.
Last week Trump supporters and leftist social justice warriors met on
the political field of battle in Berkeley, California. Words were
exchanged, as were punches. And while an alt-right leader was punched in
the face, by all accounts even the social justice warriors admit that
they got a major beat-down.
This prompted a reddit discussion
among the left’s tolerant resistance movement, with many asking how
they can more effectively go to war against anyone who disagrees with
their social, political, and economic views.
I love the second to last comment, a lone voice of reason.
This is troubling to say the least, but if they go about getting their guns legally not much can be done.
They couldn’t get their race war going before their leader left, so now they want a civil war.
Yeah, no. These are the same people that previously gave anyone hell for defending the 2nd Amendment, including LGBT people and women wanting to protect themselves.
The people that make up ANTIFA are the social outcast loser kids that got beat up and picked on at school. These are the kind of people that fantasize about violently striking back at everyone who ever made fun of them. They’re NOT mentally stable, they’re bitter, and this is the excuse for turning violent that they’ve always DREAMED of. They’ve always been the ones most likely to go full Columbine, and now they see an opportunity since they’ve realized that literally NO ONE sees them as a threat, and they’re a bunch of punk-ass kids that can’t fight for shit.
They realized they ain’t shit without weapons, so now they suddenly support the right to bear arms. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
Funny how people who are extremely pro-second amendment are now shitting themselves over antifa arming themselves. It’s almost as if this wasn’t ever about guns, but about power. Now that antifa are realising what they need to do, their opponents are getting scared, scared because they know there’s nothing they can do to win.
Can I send you the $7,000,000 bill when Charles Murray, whose reaction to his findings was to suggest instituting a basic income, which is pretty much the opposite of systematically murdering people, gets shot by one of your idiots?
Because that’s what this is about.
You guys can’t even avoid pepper-spraying people wearing bitcoin hats and destroying cars belonging to immigrants. Your Nazi-dar is apparently complete trash judging by its results. If you can’t even avoid physically assaulting people that aren’t Nazis with non-lethal weapons because you’re so obsessed with “punchin’ Natzis!”, then it’s almost inevitable that random people are going to get killed in this misguided quest to become revolutionaries.
This goes double over the obsession of characterizing speech you guys disagree with as a form of “violence” in order to excuse this behavior.
I imagine one of those big complex things being that he believes in a gay "infection"/virus.
His position is a little more nuanced than that, but in general I disagree with his “either genes or parasites” approach to heritable phenotypes. I know a pair of identical twins where only one is gay, and it was obvious at least in middle school. I even remember associating the vowel at the end of his name with his softer features and voice, and the consonant at the end of his twin’s name with his more masc demeanor. I didn’t really even know what gay was in middle school. I just used that to tell them apart, and now that one of them is a male model in NYC and the other one has a wife and kids my old trick makes sense.
I suppose Cochran would say that, between birth and middle school, one twin was exposed to communicable gay and the other wasn’t. I don’t buy it. I think it’s a differential fetal testosterone exposure thing (same reason identical twins can sometimes be discordant for autism, despite autism being highly heritable) which means it’s probably adaptive in some obtuse way that Cochran would harrumph about (e.g. group selection, eusocial stuff, lower mate competition between siblings, more likely (in the past) to stay home and take care of dear mother, etc.).
Cochran is correct to point out that a dramatic change in effective reproductive phenotype should not persist at this fraction without either being advantageous or environmental.
That’s sort-of a nonsequitor, because the incentives and practical considerations around slavery are very different from those around guns.
One of the chief questions is - is your government strong enough to actually prevent people from importing black market firearms in notable numbers? Some governments are, such as Japan and the UK, which are both islands. Some governments have large numbers of historical firearms that could not all be removed, and lengthy borders, such as the US.
If you can’t reasonably get enough firearms out, then gun control looks worse. If you can, then it looks better.
The presence of firearms acts as a force multiplier for criminal activity, but also for civilian defense, however the key elements of gun-based combat center around cover, movement, surprise, and so on, so attacking is easier than defending. This isn’t a total wash, but the effects are unclear. It also offers the opportunity for a decentralization of power and probably makes what conflicts do erupt more likely to end in death.
A lot of this also depends on what’s meant by “gun control,” for instance banning fully-automatic weapons vs all handguns.
One of the things Scott points out is that we kill as many people per capita in this country without guns as the Europeans do in total, before we even add in the murders with guns.
American needs gun control, seriously. Omg, please stay safe if you’re in Cleveland!!!
Why is it obvious?
Gun control? Stay safe? How does one stay safe with no guns, hide?
@sharingan-rasengan-chidori Hi there. My name is Red and I was shot at in Cleveland with illegally obtained guns back nearly 10 years ago. There was no law then or now that would have prevented the thugs that unloaded several rounds at me into the cars I was near or into the brick wall behind me. The guys they had were illegally obtained.
Criminals don’t care about laws. The people that are shooting other people aren’t the ones that follow laws.
Gun control does not work.
If gun control works then how come the UK still has a death toll for death via gun
If guns make you safe then why does the USA have such a hilariously high crime rate
Because gun free zones are where most crime happens
fire engines are (((accidentally))) nearby wherever there’s fire
What?
I’m saying that rain is caused by all the wet roads.
The USA actually has a high crime rate even after you remove the gun crime, relative to europe/jp etc. Some other countries have less crime with similar amounts of guns.
(Yeah that rent issue is almost a direct loss of value.) As for regulation, though, the simple axis of too much/not enough probably isn’t a good one. We would likely benefit from having the same amount of regulation, but better, or less regulation that’s more strongly and consistently enforced.
Well, I think there are ways to solve all of it, or most of it anyway, it’s just that most of the ways happen to involve stepping on a number of ideologies’ toes.
In a time when phrases like “Global savings glut“ are thrown around, I get confused as to why anyone thinks solutions like “The problem is that we don’t have enough available capital for investing“ make sense, apart from places that can engage in zero-sum competitions for investment. That doesn’t really seem like the limiting factor here.
Maybe there’s a reason that makes sense, but I’m not seeing it.
I do think there’s an If-Then there.
In that IF you fixed a bunch of your institutions to let you spend money in interesting ways, THEN you could spend a bunch of money doing useful things and not have said savings glut.
Because the skyline of every major city is filled with million-dollar holes that could be filled with half a million in materials.
And those holes aren’t filled for very bad reasons like zoning laws.
Ah, but my dear Poi, why are the zoning laws broken?
Because the only way to avoid crime and societal dysfunction under our current conditions is to price it out of the market! Also American cities suck at spending infrastructure money effectively, but that’s more widely acknowledged.
The political will for denser zoning will not exist until multiple other issues are rectified, including the creation of criminals, improper incentives that don’t sufficiently reward non-criminal relative to criminal activity, simultaneous over and under policing of areas, etc.
So I’ve been seeing this post go around our little sphere here, and….
look, everything in that post is correct, but the change is never going to happen.
the “Dork = Reactionary” narrative is a superweapon that SJ is never going to willingly surrender. it’s too goddamn useful.
not only does it allow them to righteously bash a helpless target (“THESE BARELY-FUNCTIONAL ASPIES ARE ALL SECRETLY NAZIS!!!”), but also allows them to use the threat of being tarred as a NEET to keep each other toeing the line.
Rightist: accusing me of paranoia is undermining the security of our nation! Leftist: I don’t see the problem with leftists remaining calm in the face of possible danger, better than giving in to fear.
Centrists fail to see important threats while fixating on nonexistent threats, yay.
C'est moi?
I’m identifying as somewhat of a social centrist these days, whatever that means. I watched as rightists wastefully burnt through dragon hoards’ worth of social capital fighting The Gays, and for years I thought that meant Leftists/Liberals were more broadly correct and Conservatives were just prudes.
Then I started to see that atomic individualism isn’t what humans are ‘made’ for, and looked on in horror as I realized the only group that might stand in the way of legalizing polygamy (with all its problems) no longer has the social capital to effectively do so. Also that random casual sex isn’t what most people find healthy/fulfilling, and so on and so forth.
I’ll be honest here, part of the reason housing isn’t keeping up is zoning laws, and the secret reason for zoning laws being so dysfunctional…
…is to maintain safety/security, environment, and school quality by pricing the dysfunctional out of the local housing market.
How will people react to high levels of low-skilled immigration and accompanying levels of crime and other social dysfunction? They’ll react by pushing this stratification harder. It’s the only way for them to protect themselves, slow cultural diffusion, and maintain the social environment they need to raise their children.
To get open borders with an actually-reasonable level of housing construction, you’re going to have to go FULL SINGAPORE, become less democratic, more Capitalist (in some senses but not others), and brutally crush crime so that the zoning laws can be loosened.
But how many people who want open borders are okay with bringing back public corporal punishment?
People already weren’t taking Spencer seriously, and one of the non-WN Republicans I know thinks Milo essentially fell on his sword to make sure the Left kept saying it hates pedos. I think opinion on Milo may be higher than you think it is.
Additionally, none of these address the root causes of the increasing prominence of White Nationalism, which isn’t just “lol white people are racist”.
Again, people googling randos they've never heard of before is not evidence that they become Nazis themselves. You know what stops Nazis? Ten million communists with weapons. You know what would have helped? Liberals. Fucking. Helping. I know you like fascists way too much to defend the oppressed, but AT LEAST DO NOT INTERFERE.
If your plan only works if no one ‘interferes’ by arguing on the internet that your efforts are observably counterproductive and unhelpful, then your plan is a colossal failure.
But, seriously, the ‘should you no-platform speakers at colleges’ debate isn’t the ‘punch Nazis’ debate and I think it’s really unhelpful to conflate them. Someone might believe that it’s right to pull fire alarms, scream at the top of your lungs, block cars, etc. in order to make sure that, say, trans-exclusionary feminists can’t give a talk at their college, while also believing that bludgeoning purported Nazis is a terrible idea. “Does suppressing speeches on college campuses and in other public arenas by having violent demonstrations against them work?” is the question I am discussing in that post, and as you correctly observe, “no, that fails to suppress the speech” is not an answer to a wide variety of unrelated questions.
When I write posts about whether punching Nazis is a good idea then you are welcome to spam me with hysterical anons claiming that I love Nazis, am personally a liberal fascist, am responsible for the rise of the Third Reich, etcetera etcetera, but when that’s also your response to ‘no-platforming fails because of the Streisand effect’ then someone might conclude that’s just your default response to literally any dissent, you know?
As always I am proudly and openly committing to interfering with street violence against unarmed people, organized brutality of every kind, and the spread of dishonest, misguided, and nonsensical information about how a society can fight violent extremism. Yes, I will interfere. Yes, I do interfere. Yes, I will persuade everyone that I possibly can to interfere alongside me.
Oh, geez, all this complaining about the Wall. Guys, Americans have wanted lower immigration for some time, but the leadership betrayed this desire repeatedly. The Wall isn’t some vanity project, it’s the reaction to this repeated behavior in a way that is easily measurable and cannot be easily sabotaged.
Yes, camera drones would have been cheaper and ecologically better, but y'all complainers already ruined that possibility since you’d dismantle the program the moment he left office and we all know it. Sanctuary cities mean you have no credibility to signal cooperation.
the way colonial societies resolved these mental tensions in the past was by telling themselves that the Indigenous population would naturally die out (while helping the “natural” process along a bit, if necessary) resulting in the new settlers inheriting the mantle of rightful occupiers and doing a better job of it.
there’s a steaming dose of Just World hypothesis in this, and a big chunk of the ersatz Darwinian chain of being idea, where god or nature had given various groups a shot at occupying particular areas and some of them just weren’t good enough and sadly but inevitably they would diminish like Tolkien’s elves and be replaced by hard-working Anglos or whatever and this was just The Plan.
a lot of the debate at the time was between the people who thought that the pesky natives should be done away with as soon as possible, and the gentle folk who thought that the pesky natives should be cared for and converted to christianity before their inevitable demise.
of course it didn’t turn out that way: we don’t know exactly how many Aboriginal people lived in Australia in 1788 when the British showed up, but it was probably not that far off the number living in Australia today, and the two populations have never been more estranged.
White people will die off and be replaced by more-deserving diverse populations… …wait a minute, why does that sound familiar…
The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous startups in Silicon Valley, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five startups?” // “If I find forty-five there,” God said, “I will not destroy it.”
… The two venture capitalists arrived at Palo Alto in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. … They did go with him and entered his $0.9m one-bedroom home. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without gluten, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of Silicon Valley—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can pitch our startups to them.”
