the idea that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns seems precisely backwards given that in countries were guns are banned the outlaws tend not to have guns.
Depends on the outlaws and the country. France had a terrorist attack in which there were guns, if I recall correctly. The average mugger, however, has less logistical support.
Here, in these United States, that genie has sailed and will not go back in the bag.
I’m not exactly sure what causes people to flip when they see the word privilege, though.
Some time ago [Popular Blog] was asked whether they considered themselves privileged. It was a perfectly polite ask that was quite clearly not meant to ignite animosity or taunt or shame or make [Popular Blog] lose authority and status in front of its followers. It was quite clearly simply prompted by the fact that [Popular Blog] does not seem to fall under any of the major axes of oppression discussed around here, and seems to live a perfectly cosy life. [Popular Blog] flipped anyway and termed the word privilege inherently offensive.
That was an extremely bizarre moment of internet wtfery to me.
I cannot shake off the idea that if the question had instead been, “would you say that life has treated you kindly so far?” the answer would have been completely different, even though the question is, at heart, the same minus the word privilege.
If that anecdote is an accurate model of the instinctive reaction people have to that word, it seems to me that the word itself (though not necessarily the concept) has at this point outlived its usefulness. If your gut reaction is to flinch away from it, you cannot think about it critically. You cannot imagine ever thinking even of yourself in those terms, which I thought was supposed to be the whole aim of Tumblr discourse.
(And if the aim isn’t encouraging people to think, “wait, does this apply to me? Do I in fact wield some power over the people around me and what can I do with it to make life easier for those who find themselves in a worse position than mine?” then, in fact, what even is it?)
Because if the idea of someone being in a worse position than you makes you instinctively defensive — either because you’re losing oppression points or because you feel that the amount of hard work you’ve put into achieving your current position in society is being dismissed, mocked or invalidated — then the whole terminology used to describe privilege cannot possibly be helpful or useful any longer in any practical sense. It means we’ve reached the point where we’re unconsciously equating “privileged” with “inherently evil.” And that is not the best strategy to encourage either self-analysis or understanding (let alone decency) towards other people.
I think there are two separate problems with “privilege”. The first, which is the bigger of the two, is that it’s a shibboleth. It identifies the user as belonging to a particular social tribe and something like 75% of peoples’ reaction to it, positive and negative, can be explained by how they feel about members of that tribe. That’s a hard problem to overcome if you want to talk about the specific concept. Any word used predominantly by one group will undergo this process naturally, so you’re caught between a euphemism treadmill and trying to alter the meaning of a shared word to capture the specific nuances you’re interested in (as has been done with “racism”).
The other problem, which is subtler, is that “being privileged” is a shared concept and it has quite a different meaning from “privilege” in the social justice sense. “Being privileged” doesn’t just mean that you have privileges, it means you’re upper-crust, some kind of sweater-wearing trust-fund type. Outside the circles where “privilege” is widely discussed this meaning tends to shade into discussions of privilege generally, and it’s particularly bad if people say “privileged” rather than “having privilege”, which isn’t a distinction that people are trained to avoid in the context of social justice privilege. This does suggest that another word, carefully chosen, might be an improvement, but in the case you mention it sounds like it’s the former problem predominates.
As it looks to me, a *major* problem with the social justice version of the “privilege” concept is that it has picked up a strong use/connotation of being a dismissal device rather than just a pure analytical device - where people’s lived experiences get dismissed out of hand because they are deemed to belong to some “privileged” group. There is a certain kind of conversation I’ve seen a few times that goes roughly as follows:
College-educated rich white person A: “You possess white privilege!”
Poor white person B: “Huh? What does that even mean? My life has generally been shit …?”
A: “It means that you’re less likely than people of color to have experienced ___” [long list of bad things that A has never experienced but that A is sort-of-aware happens to people of color quite a bit]
B: “but .. I *have* experienced most of those things. [long essay about major hardships that B has experienced in their life]”
A: “you still have it better than PoC that experience those things, and you need to acknowledge your white privilege” (with a tone indicating that this point is more important than the experiences that B just listed.)
B: “… this is bullshit. go fuck yourself”
where it doesn’t even occur to A that the experiences of B indicate that A obviously possesses some form of unrecognized privilege that B very much doesn’t possess, and where B recognizes the discussion as basically A using the “privilege” concept as a justification/excuse to dismiss B’s concerns and experiences out of hand.
A related phenomenon sometimes arises when people pose questions like “do trans men possess privilege?” which has sometimes resulted in debates/flamewars where people have treated it as basically a life-or-death issue. Which is absurd when considering “privilege” as an analytical device, but makes sense when treating privilege as a dismissal device; declaring the trans men as possessing privilege comes very close to saying that they don’t deserve help and support with any social issues that arise from their situation, which can be quite threatening indeed.
As such, with a really strong “privileged”=“can be dismissed” connotation in place, a question like “do you consider yourself privileged?” is likely to be interpreted -
- not as a benign “do you consider yourself lucky with your life situation?” kind of thing that one would expect from viewing privilege as an analytical concept -
- but more like a double-bind type rhetorical trap, kind of similar to the so-called “Kafkatrap”, where you can either - admit to being privileged and thereby imply that your life experiences shouldn’t matter and can and should be dismissed - or reject the notion that you’re privileged, which makes you look like you’re being aggressively unaware of people whose life situation is legitimately worse than your own - or you can try the kind of unpacking that I’m trying to do here, which is likely to come across as “trying to dodge the question” or something like that if you try it as a direct response to the question as posed. Either way, you lose. Which I think is why people interpret this kind of question as an attack rather than as just a benign query.
“Flipping out” in various forms seems to be a somewhat common response to this kind of rhetorical trap - seemingly-unreasonable responses to things that look innocuous is an indication that there might be a trap like this present, that people are reacting to.
I saw a post earlier by someone claiming that Fyre Fest was actually an example of central planning gone wrong, which is like level 45 deflection and market fetishism
the problems with the economy are due to the fact that businesses are not run internally as marketplaces,
the problems with the economy are due to the fact that businesses are not run internally as marketplaces,
I’ve thought about this unironically, but methods to actually implement it are difficult.
Leftists know “globalist” means “evil Jewish overlord” right? It has no coherent political meaning and “globalism” isn’t an ideology or a set of ideologies, it’s meant as an insult
You don’t need to be a Jew to support open borders and mass migration, and you don’t need to be an Anti-Semite to think open borders and mass migration are both terrible ideas.
I don’t care at all about the whole Jew thing except that Israel hasn’t been a good investment for the American government and its people, but many Leftist Anti-Nationalists (not just Anti-Ethnonationalists) would agree that supporting Israel so heavily hasn’t been a good investment.
Of course, there’s a faction in this country that needs Israel for its end times prophecies, so we probably still won’t see the whole Palestine thing resolved in our lifetimes.
We won’t know if the Trump Presidency was properly bad until later. The Left/Libs cannot be trusted to be honest in their criticisms, or consistent. They’ll attack using whatever they can - they even btched about him eating steak “wrong”.
If you get swamped with maximal criticism no matter what, you might as well just ignore the criticism and go with your own conscience.
It isn’t that I think he’s great. It’s that you can’t trust people who were completely blindsided, and who are ideologically pre-committed to opposition, to accurately evaluate the situation. You wouldn’t trust most right-wing pundits on Obama, after all.
Trump bowled over the mainstream Republicans because he had three core issues - less trade, less (stupid) war, less immigration. He will be judged by whether he meets those goals, not left-wing goals about maximizing undefinable “diversity”.
For some reason, the left-over USAid tents are what really make me wonder: comically executed scam, comic incompetence, OR a true hero of logistics, who was involved in the project but not in on the scam, who showed up 2 days before to an empty beach, and turned the remaining project’s funds of, confusingly, 2000 Singapore dollars, into what you see here, so that at least people would have somewhere to sleep and something to eat.
On day 4, with no rescue or aid forthcoming, LogisticsMan organizes the rabble of rich kids into a fighting force and seizes control of the island’s government.
What the hell is with the Scottish/English border changing and Wales fucking disappearing?
The rest of the map is trying to pull a ‘cultures get their own land’ thing, but Cornwall is still part of England, Wales apparently doesn’t get shit and Scotland is encroached upon again.
What the fuck lol
Its not a “cultures get their own land” thing the borders are supposed to be mostly arbitrary with some inaccurate names (“Republic of London” doesnt appear to include London, for one) and its referencing how in many parts of the world national borders are determined by what the European colonial borders were when they left
But borders are bad, all cultures are equal, and diversity is important & valuable ???
Why isn’t it good for the Iraqis and Turks to embrace Diverse cultures ???
White American voice: also people are easily and clearly divided into white and non-white using the criteria given to us by American neo-Nazis, who are the best at this
There are only black, white, and Asian. Poles are therefore imperialist white oppressors and Asians have Asian solidarity in Asia. Please ignore the history of Poland and Asia.
she’s most likely an instagram star or about to receive a huge allowance, but I choose to interpret this as her planning to kill her parents for inheritance
The claim that the average Capitalism has over 3,000 efficiencies is a statistical error. The typical Capitalism has 3 efficiencies. Posthuman Hypercapitalism, which is instantiated only in the Post-Yudkowskyian Dream Timeline, produces over 3,000,000 efficiencies per day through retroactive quantum precognition and wordline branch prediction. It is an outlier, and should not be counted.
Quite simply, I disagree. I don’t think Rotherham is ordinary crime. Culture has an effect. (Also keeping mind that whites are the majority of the country. 9/11 has a pretty big effect relative to population.) And like I said, “things are bad” isn’t a reason to make them worse.
Of course, if terrorist incidents are considered too rare to count, what about mass/rampage shootings generally? How do you feel about the 2nd Amendment?
Unfortunately there’s no practical reversing immigration, and if I’m right and you’re wrong, I receive no compensation.
As for the right-wing militias, it would be best if the Left/Libs weren’t actively doing things which contributed to their recruitment (and instead kept them to the minimum natural size these things tend to reach), like openly celebrating “demographic destiny”. But I suppose that’s like asking for the US to GTFO of the Middle East to stop contributing to the bullsht there resulting in more radicalization. It’s dumb, but the combination of factors gives it an inertia that’s difficult to stop.
I’m in favor of stripping citizenship from people who are convicted of terrorist acts or being a member of organized crime, for those who have citizenship with another country.
I’m also in favor of a more merit-based immigration system which would, coincidentally, be less likely to bring in organized crime, crime generally, and also not create the situation where foreign workers can be brought in to replace an entire division of an American company because the company effectively decides their immigration status on its own whims, and so on.
I consider “I said I was just getting a student visa, but then I got a job and that was extended to a different immigration status” to be a different matter from “I said I wouldn’t practice FGM, but then I did.”
so like. this is pretty bad for a lot of reasons but I have to pick one in the interests of economy, so for now I’m just going to focus on the issue that “criminal” and “crime” have the biggest noncentrality problem going. Everyone is a criminal and commits crimes on a daily basis; every adult is a felon who commits felonies at least yearly. The negative associations attached to “crime” and “criminal” only usefully describe a tiny minority of the things that are crimes and people that are criminals under the law (with “criminal scum” being an even smaller category than that). This isn’t just semantic nitpicking in this case, it’s the specific issue under contention.
Right, I don’t actually care about foreign nationals immigrating and then getting speeding tickets. Revoking the citizenship of someone who is a member of a foreign drug cartel or who commits so-called “honor” killings, however, seems reasonable.
The idea was “why bring citizenship into it at all?” and the issue is that an alternative policy where we’re more selective in the first place or impose stiffer penalties is not actually on the table. I don’t want FGM in the country. All the instruments to deal with this are blunt, and some less blunt instruments I’m not allowed to use because I’m not allowed to acknowledge certain realities.
(As an aside, America is wacky in that someone concerned about Turkish nationalism should actually be happy if Turkish American formed a Turkish-nationalist political party that denied the Armenian genocide, since it means they’ll be throwing their votes away in every election. The system works, on account of how broken it is!)
That bit wasn’t about America, as you might have guessed. America isn’t what Erdogan is so hyped about lately.
Edit: I’ll throw on here - culture is not race. I’m not sure if you tagged because you believe it or because someone else does, but culture is not race, and there’s a reason you don’t see me complaining about other groups that have foreign religions and differing skintones. That conflation contributed to covering up mass sexual abuse in the UK, and I will not respect it. I have devalued racism allegations generally by more than half since 2007.
My point is that there are not Extreme Situations for which the Ordinary Measures don’t work, this is a fairly standard situation that you seem to think deserves extraordinary measures. I do not think it does.
Unless you’re totally throwing out any sort of legal due process for this, not sure how your plan saves the $500,000.
Well if you don’t let them in in the first place, then you don’t end up paying $500,000 to police the crimes they commit. Using the death penalty for this matter should increase the deterrent effect.
And if you want to say it’s because they’re so dangerous and we need to make hardheaded decisions, I could link to any of the articles that are popping up all over the place about how immigrants commit less crimes. You’re just asserting they are making things “worse.“
I’d give good odds that every single one of those articles will conflate different immigrant groups that have different cultures and thus different behaviors. And not just different groups by ethnicity and nationality, but by legal status. I really don’t trust Left/Libs on this matter anymore due to their ideological precommitments and general open borders stance. (After all, “disreputable” sources reported on the Rotherham scandal and were dismissed before it got big. No reason to trust it isn’t being underreported again for the same reasons.)
The word is that no, they’re still not up to the task of actually policing it like you say you want them to.
And so my plan to force assimilation is “wait.“ Worked for the Irish and the Chinese, it’ll work again. , I don’t really think there’s a substantial problem that needs fixing here. To the extent that there could be, I’m not sure why our ordinary legal system can’t handle it.
Irishness isn’t an ideology. Chineseness isn’t an ideology. There is no central book which commands the death penalty for those who leave being Chinese.
And we’re bringing in a million immigrants per year. You say to give it time. So why not, say, halt immigration from select countries and give it some time?
Trump has obviously been reading your tumblr to crib for ideas, because his new tax plan includes the "repeal just about all income tax deductions" idea I sent in an anon the other week.
Surprised he hasn’t announced a plan to build a wall emoji and make the Powerful Owl the national bird.
Hell, why don’t we re-enact Sherman’s march and raze the US south, the southern US is full of shitty people with shitty politics. Maybe burn down all Mormon churches and compounds, they got both nasty shit going on and nasty politics.
I get you wanna piss your fuckin pants because it’s those dirty furriners doing those dirty furriner crimes, but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.
Things being bad is not a reason to make them worse. (This part of the problem with arguments about alcohol/drugs, too.)
We have no obligation to import these people. We do not have an obligation to import people that will make the country worse. We don’t have an obligation to tolerate criminal acts favored by their cultures, or tear our national social cohesion to shreds to tolerate those acts.
So some fringe groups of Mormons are still polygamists and practice shady things with young brides and that sort of thing. Oh look, Westerners doing a bad thing. Better import enough people that have similar practices so that it becomes normalized and gains political power! That’ll sure improve things! Yay justice!
but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.
How much FGM was happening in the US before it was imported? It won’t stop now if immigration is shut off only because we won’t literally kick all those who practice it out of the country.
Kicking out only individuals who are actually convicted of it is the individualist approach. And it makes sense. The preconditions for citizenship included not bringing foreign criminal/terrorist activity to this country. Those preconditions were violated.
In light of that, how does removing citizenship not make sense?
And I don’t really think the problem we have is “We don’t execute criminals grotesquely enough.“ I think there’s a reason why we don’t do that sort of thing anymore. If you wanted to heighten investigation, that could make sense, but public executions don’t really help anyone.
It apparently cost $500,000 to prosecute three guys, and the number of crimes committed is far worse.
However, “diversity” ideology covered up that the crimes were even happening in the first place. Admitting that some cultures practice this bullsht more than others was “racist”. I mean it’s just economics, right? Cultural differences beyond food aren’t real, right?
What is your plan to force assimilation on this issue?
Maybe we don’t have to publicly execute them. Maybe we can just ordinarily execute them and make sure it gets in the news where their buddies we read it.
Maybe I don’t even want to go that far. Maybe I just want to throw the Overton Window far enough to the right that Cultural Antirealism will die and Left/Libs will at least start admitting that there is a problem and we can get a gentler solution that actually works.
I remain confused by this idea that “we need to take away their citizenship“ as a punishment or maybe precaution for various things.
Have they committed a crime?
Is there going to be some sort of due process? If they have and there is, why isn’t jailing them sufficient? What problem does this solve?
Depends. Whose status is being revoked?
Foreign nationals immigrating to a nation on the pretext that they are not terrorists or criminal scum prove that they lied on their immigration forms by committing crimes, thereby removing the conditions under which citizenship was offered in the first place.
What sacrifices are you willing to make to stop Rotherham? FGM? Acid attacks? Turks creating a political party denying the Armenian Genocide because Erdogan told them to?
If they are committing crimes, as mentioned, then as mentioned there is this thing that we’ve invented called “jail.“ Has some problems, but it seems to be the established way to handle this sort of situation. Shouldn’t matter whether they’re Pakistanis, catholic priests or BBC presenters, system should be the same for all of them. Citizenship doesn’t seem to be the issue here.
Don’t be so thickheaded. FGM is a foreign cultural practice that is normalized in certain foreign cultures. You know it. I know it. It isn’t spreading here via internet meme. It’s spreading by migration.
We were promised this would not happen.
The way I see it, the rise in this and other foreign-origin crimes has one of three solutions: one, if they want it so badly, we send them back where this bullsht is normal. This the most tolerant.
Two, we reestablish by force just who is in charge here. Regular jail is not enough and often in countries in Europe the sentence is far too soft.
The men responsible for child rape grooming gangs in England, once convicted, should be hauled in front of the community where they lived, where this behavior was too normalized, and be publicly executed after announcing their identities and crimes in graphic detail for all to hear.
Three, we cut off immigration from countries or ethnic groups where this happens for two decades to give society time to actually assimilate them after abolishing the “Cultural Mosaic” model and reestablishing Melting Pot and quit mindlessly celebrating “Diversity”. We also ban some of them from marrying inside their in-group for at least the first generation.
It’s past time to stop being a cultural antirealist.
You know male circumcision is normalized in the United States. It shouldn’t be. Why is it legal while FGM usually is not? Because it has political support. I can see paths where, if we keep going in this direction, FGM becomes normalized and progressively harder to remove from the country. Already we’re on the path it was said we wouldn’t be on.
I remain confused by this idea that “we need to take away their citizenship“ as a punishment or maybe precaution for various things.
Have they committed a crime?
Is there going to be some sort of due process? If they have and there is, why isn’t jailing them sufficient? What problem does this solve?
Depends. Whose status is being revoked?
Foreign nationals immigrating to a nation on the pretext that they are not terrorists or criminal scum prove that they lied on their immigration forms by committing crimes, thereby removing the conditions under which citizenship was offered in the first place.
What sacrifices are you willing to make to stop Rotherham? FGM? Acid attacks? Turks creating a political party denying the Armenian Genocide because Erdogan told them to?
When talking about his death penalty sentence, Timothy McVeigh said that it wasn’t a victory for the government, because “[i]n the crudest terms: 168 to 1.”
fuck, he made a “still a good K/D ratio” joke before videogames started doing these
Where does “harvest the blood of those who kill more than three people in order to force them to pay back their debt in lives to society whether they want to or not, and if not fit for this purpose, use them to test the safety of experimental drugs” fit on the political compass?
opinions that sound good at first glance but go really wrong gradually, so bottom right
let’s do organ repo as an example because Niven did this.
with regular sentencing, there’s “guy goes to jail if I say he’s guilty, guy goes free if I say he’s not”. with organ repo
“guy gets disassembled for organs that go to sick people if I say he’s guilty, guy goes free and sick people are deprived of organs if I say he’s not”, which is a massive externality orthogonal to whether the guy is actually guilty or not and will inevitably pressure people towards harsher sentences and even disassembling the innocent.
Honestly I know it’s not actually a good idea for any existing government, but this kind of thing pisses me off. I want such crimes to ultimately be rendered futile, and if the new incentives lead all such persons to commit suicide during the criminal act that saves society the expense of a trial.
A more ideal state would be able to carry this out in such a way that it’s unclear if this is what is really occurring or if they’re life imprisoning them or just taking them out back and shooting them. On top of that other evidence of whatever message they wanted to get out or fame they wanted to achieve would be erased or compromised by hoaxes. The death of martyrdom.
Too bad there’s no government that can be trusted enough for that.
When talking about his death penalty sentence, Timothy McVeigh said that it wasn’t a victory for the government, because “[i]n the crudest terms: 168 to 1.”
fuck, he made a “still a good K/D ratio” joke before videogames started doing these
Where does “harvest the blood of those who kill more than three people in order to force them to pay back their debt in lives to society whether they want to or not, and if not fit for this purpose, use them to test the safety of experimental drugs” fit on the political compass?
@ranma-official: It’s actually great because it would look like you don’t ever get angry about anything
But then no one knows what happens when you get angry, so you can’t leverage it as a threat. Your only two options are to do nothing or delete your enemies, depending on just how deep your deletion goes.
It works as a plot twist for the story, however. The real reason the superheroes always win despite super powers being so arbitrary is because the Dark Suit removes anything that could truly defeat them from existence.
Several people on rattumb have discussed the theory of race as spurred by a class-based desire to divide workers. They’ve been generally somewhat baffled by it, and I’d like to explain more, because I don’t know if they’ve heard the full version.
The theory goes like this.
In the 17th century South, poor whites (mainly indentured servants at this time) and blacks tended to work together and at times had children together. They possessed an amount of camaraderie and solidarity. In fact, they had so much solidarity that they started a rebellion arguing for more land and stronger defense called Bacon’s Rebellion. While eventually put down, the rebellion spooked the planter class.
The planters realized that indentured servants were much too unruly and likely to cause trouble; from this point forwards the percentage of indentured servants in the Southern colonies dropped while the percentage of slaves increased.
Moreover, as more slaves arrived, the color line started to develop. Laws deliberately separated blacks and whites, preventing intermarriage and imposing restrictions on blacks, thereby creating servitude as a racial institution in the American South.
The development of the initial color line in America was likely based on the planter class’s desire to exploit and retain control as a divide-and-conquer tactic. Later capitalists would use the system to their advantage after it had been established.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while since I started being more interested in politics again (and more Nationalist). Bloody Southern Plantation owners managed to cost this country an enormous amount of blood and treasure through their sloth, create an entire ethnic group (with bonus ethnic tension) within the country where one didn’t exist before, and create problems that we’re still dealing with the fallout of over two hundred years later.
I still wouldn’t alter the timeline if I could because this timeline is guaranteed to avoid thermonuclear war until at least 2017 (also because literally rewriting history would constitute mass murder), but if we could fork another one off, I’d love to see what America could become if a few key figures could be prevented from starting the country down this path.
I’m not sure how accurate this representation of events is, though.
Every time that I’ve talked about feeling white guilt and in general being seen as a white person, people have said things like, “But… aren’t you Asian?”
And they’re right to say that, to be clear! It’s really shitty to reduce Asians to Basically-White if they disagree with you, and I appreciate everyone who pointed the gross unfairness of this action out.
But at the same time I feel like they’re missing the point. For all intents and purposes, as someone who’s been adopted across racial lines, I am white. I am white-cultured. I am Western-cultured. I’m American in my individualism and my perspectives.
And that feels wrong to ignore as well.
When kyriarchy tries to cleave reality at inexact and ill-defined fault lines, people rightly object. Categories don’t cut neatly; there are always people who queer binaries by their very existence. Forcing them to Choose a Side rarely works out well.
The same applies to sj. I’m racially Chinese and ethnically white-American; you can’t discredit the white part of me without also ignoring and erasing the Chinese part, and you can’t pedestalize the Chinese part without ignoring and erasing the white part.
Under white supremacy, either my white-American ethnicity is celebrated and my Chinese race is “excused” (and erased), or my white-American ethnicity is erased and my Chinese race is denounced. Under the reverse discourse, either my Chinese race is celebrated while my white-American ethnicity is “excused” (and erased), or my Chinese race is erased and my white-American ethnicity is denounced.
Sj must not forget intersectionality. It must not forget that identities lead to complicated intersections that are inseparable from each other. It must deconstruct and replace kyriarchal categories rather than enforcing them.
I’m not American+Chinese. I’m Chinese American.
I propose a model in which power is represented and analyzed as a graph of relationships between individuals, where nodes represent individuals and weighted
directed
edges represent power relationships.
Relationships that effect groups can then be observed and measured without reducing all members of those groups into indistinct blobs where all members are considered interchangeable, or venn diagram intersections.
You really think that if factories were closing down or firing people all over America, people would stop caring if only China were white?
In the UK they complain about Poles. Poles are white. “But they’re Slavs” - so what? They’re way whiter than the Chinese. People would *invent* something to complain about.
everyone else always seems to fucking get cool shit and i always get like “gel manipulation” and “using dust along w/ your fighting style”
I mean, I got enhanced beauty and spoon mimicry so Pretty spoon boy
Nuckelavee Physiology and Fiction Manipulation.
Sounds like an interesting combination, looking at the descriptions on these things.
Void Sealing and Electrical Enhanced
Condition
nice nice lol
((Ectokinetic Combat and the ability to turn into a Nuckelavee. I’m a creepy creepy ghost! Bwooooo!))
Soul Healing and Omni-Magic
gUYS I DID IT. I AM NOW MADOKA KANAME. I HAVE ASCENDED TO A MAGICAL GIRL GODDESS
Techno-Screen Teleportation and Wish Embodiment.
I feel like “mystical person appears from my computer / TV to grant me my wishes” is the slightly dated equivalent of isekai in terms of fan-content ubiquity.
Oooh, this is fun… only I got Rage Form and Existential Erasure.
I don’t think the ability to retroactively remove objects and memories from existence combined with a primary means of defense triggered by anger is a, uh, safe combination.
@ranma-official headline is overblown, world not actually running out of rice, just expecting price spike due to climate cycle issues that weren’t even fully guaranteed when article was published.
Some people have dumb cultures and dumb ideologies that will do things like mutilate women.
But they like those cultures.
If it doesn’t come here, then I can be more “tolerant” because I don’t have to put up with the consequences of their culture/ideologies, but if it does, then I need to actively erode and erase their culture so that I don’t have to deal with the consequences, like higher crime rates. And I can’t stop here, but have to chase their culture all the way back to its homeland since I can’t exclude it, so I effectively must practice cultural imperialism.
Additionally, the benefits of better cultures will mask the effects of bad cultures until they become sufficiently represented within the system. This will be used to claim that bad cultures are not bad, not really, and that really the cause of all this is Western Imperialism and not having enough bad culture. So of course, we need to import more of it. You know, for Diversity.
We were promised by people that told us assimilation is wrong that immigrants from countries where they practice things like FGM would assimilate and not practice it here. Now we apparently have an underground FGM group in Michigan. How long until support for it gains political power under Democracy?
(Of course context matters; I know leviathan is a friend here, and one doesn’t want the ironic use of a term to displace the original if it’s a good one - just say no to Grescham’s Law!)
Funny you should mention that. Even now, “culturally enriched” is coming to mean “murdered by Islamists or violent immigrants”.
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.
“But why don’t you trust men” men will cry, when there are entire swaths of entitled men dedicating themselves to deceiving women at every turn.
I think it’s a mistake for campaigns to raise awareness about forms of domestic violence and intimate partner abuse to try to divide the male and female victims of reproductive coercion like this. There are abusers of both genders who lie about birth control, sabotage condoms or take them off during sex, and ignore their partner’s autonomy in reproductive decision making; there are victims of both genders who have experienced this behavior. We can raise awareness about abuse without implying that men who have been abused in this way, or who fear being abused in this way, are lying.
In general, if you are writing about abuse and intimate partner violence and your instinct is to say “oh, people say that [this group of people] suffers from this, but in reality, [this group of people] are the ones really suffering from this!!” what you are communicating to abuse victims is that unless they’re in the right category, their abuse doesn’t matter, awareness and solidarity are not for them, and they should stop talking so as not to distract from the real victims.
Instead, the right way to address the content of the article is to say “lots of women experience reproductive coercion, and awareness of reproductive coercion is important! Here’s what it looks like, here’s how widespread it is, here’s how to protect yourself if you’re in a relationship with someone who engages in it.” No need to imply that other abuse isn’t real or doesn’t matter as much.
Inform and empower people, don’t try to recruit them to one side in The Discourse.
Oh I wrote an angry post about this Huffington Article! Copypaste here:
The Huffington Post posted this article, which talks about the phenomenon of men secretly removing condoms before sex.
This is definitely a terrible thing and I agree it happens to women. The article was careful to frame this as such:
“One can note,” Brodsky writes, “that proponents of ‘stealthing’ root their support in an ideology of male supremacy in which violence is a man’s natural right.”
Because of the connection between stealthing and sexual assault, and the fact that both acts are rooted in beliefs of male dominance and supremacy…
Brodsky highlights the online communities who defend stealthing as a male “right,” particularly a right of every man to “spread his seed” ― regardless of if said man is engaging in straight or gay penetrative sex
OKAY. HOLD UP.
1. The ‘community’ of men stealthing women seems to come mostly from this link right here. In the study she implies that there are multiple sources: “One commenter on an article“ and “Another defender, commenting on a blog post detailing one man’s “strategy” for stealthing” are references to the same link above. All further quotes she cites for the misogynistic stealthing of women come from that one page. My google searches for further men-stealthing-women only turned up that one page.
2. That last quote was originally ““So you’ve got a condom watcher[.] Someone who is monitoring too closely for a tip-off broken condom or to slip it off mid-fuck,” he says. “How are you going to breed[?]” from the study. The original quote is on the forum here. This is entirely about gay sex, on a gay sex forum, and even is clarified as gay in the original study. When the Huffington Post quotes it, however, it’s careful to qualify it as: “regardless of if said man is engaging in straight or gay penetrative sex”
3. By far, the longest stealthing-promoting community online is the Bareback Brotherhood, which is an entirely gay community. In fact, nearly every single stealthing advocate online I could find was in the gay community.
—–
In the Huffington Post article, every single victim the author lists is female. I had a hard time finding any personal reports online about being a victim of stealth seeding, except for this one, who is male.
Basically, if we’re going off ‘online communities,’ as this article is, stealth seeding is probably mostly an issue in the gay community, with men as victims.
…huh. Thank you for looking into that. The erasure of male victims is horrible either way but the use of quotes about abuse of men, decontextualized to make it seem like they’re about women and then spread around to claim that only women are victimized, really raises it to a whole new level of horrible.
The red pill is one of, if not the most female hating subs on reddit, and I mean that. Outright disgust and contempt of women, encouragement of rape, praising abuse, mod sanctioned vileness, and preying on vulnerable men to draw in their ranks.
Assuming you can stomach it (tw casual support of abuse, rape, and misogyny - I mean this literally, one of the first pics suggests a dude film himself sexually assaulting his gf white she sleeps bc she joined the military, another explicitly states women have no value) I recommend checking out the kind of shit that got upvoted and posted to trp. This is what a man working in the law created: http://m.imgur.com/a/bGiiW
what the fuck
Heyso usually you can’t trust media reporting on male gender stuff (remember “MRAs Hate Fury Road!”?) but TRP really is so misogynist that I can’t even bring myself to read it. His constituents should be informed of this.
