Francois and David are what you could loosely characterize as “libertarian” in their world view, and we often argue about the role of government in society. One particular “clash” stands out in my mind, because it helped me crystalize my thinking on this matter. So we were talking while eating lunch at the Taco Bell in downtown Monterey of all places. Suddenly David, a man in his sixties, excused himself, got up, and ran outside. What had happened was that he had seen several young men bullying and roughing up another young man, and David had gone to intervene.
In thinking about what David had done, I finally understood how he and other libertarians could see their vision of limited government as a viable means of running a society. Such a society would be entirely workable if most people behaved like David!
It’s always a pleasant surprise when, instead of saying “libertarians are libertarian because they don’t care if other people suffer”, an opponent of libertarianism says “libertarians are libertarian because they think other people care about helping others as much as they do”.
Isn’t this true of nearly all ideologies? That if they were practiced by good people in good faith, they’d work an awful lot better?
Do you ever prescribe Ritalin/Adderall for excessive daytime sleepiness? Just curious how common a practice it is, because before my psychiatrist prescribed it for me I didn't know that was a legitimate reason to give stimulants.
I’ve never done it, and I’d be reluctant to unless I’d done a really good job trying to find the source of the sleepiness (did someone screen you for sleep apnea?)
Even if I had to do something like this, I would probably try Wellbutrin or modafinil, on general “don’t prescribe Adderall if you can avoid it” principles, which I admit are not very scientifically backed.
Okay, I think this needs to be clarified, since apparently people have sort of overlooked it:
It does not matter whether someone’s reasons for not wanting to have sex with you are good enough. They get to say no. Period. No exceptions. You don’t get to attack them or shame them for it. They just get to say “no”. It doesn’t matter whether they’re being transphobic, or racist, or sexist, or whatever else you think is wrong with their reasons. It doesn’t matter whether they’re crass and shallow and materialistic, or holding the world to unreasonable standards, or anything else.
If someone doesn’t want to have sex with you, you do not get to harass them for being wrong.
if they don’t consent, that is the end of it!
Caveat: you never get to harass someone for the act of saying no, but you can certainly call out any hurtful actions they take in the process of saying no. If someone says “of course I’d never fuck you, you [slur]”, it’s not wrong to say “I respect your ‘no’, but that was nasty and uncalled for.”
She would probably tell you you’re insane and there’s no way she would do that.
This is because, if she acts like this, she will have a harder time finding a mate. She’s been told all her life that men want a certain kind of woman, and if she is not that woman, she will die alone.
Whenever you see someone in a culture with a strong aversion to breaking their gender role - “I can’t have sex with a lot of men or I’ll be a slut!” then that is a sign that they are undergoing external pressure to behave that way in order to attract a mate - a reaction to “men want to have sex with younger, relatively inexperienced women”
So I don’t understand all of the comments about “fragile masculinity.”
If masculinity is fragile, then it’s because men have been told their whole lives that women want a certain kind of man, and if he is not that man, then he will die alone.
I don’t understand the mockery. It should be replaced with sympathy. If you wouldn’t mock a young conservative girl for having fragile femininity, then you shouldn’t mock a young man who’s scared of wearing a skirt. He’s not just afraid that wearing a skirt will make him look silly, he’s afraid that if he wears a skirt, women will ridicule him and never be attracted to him again. And sadly, a lot of the, time he’s not wrong.
If you still don’t feel sympathy for this, imagine being asked to do something that you believe will render you unattractive to your desired gender. “Come on, what’s so bad about a face full of rampant acne?” “Hey, why are you scared of 250 extra pounds? Is your body image really so fragile?”
It’s also interesting to note that women seem less afraid, in general, of violating their gender role than men are - which is why the concept of “fragile masculinity” is way more popular than “fragile femininity.” I also suspect that 100 years ago, this would not have been the case - that women’s gender roles would have been equally as strict as men’s (as evidenced by all those etiquette books on how to be a ‘proper woman’).
This seems to imply that more progress has been made into loosening women’s strict gender roles than has been made for men.
Why do you think this is?
It’s easier to loosen gender roles for women than for men because masculinity also circumscribes within it the span of all heroically admirable traits. Inner strength, ambition, risk-taking, decisiveness, independence, and command are all strongly coded masculine, and are also the traits that you see most often in the protagonists of any narrative.
The heroic feminine is far more limited- I can only right now think of empathy and emotional resilience (which differs from inner strength in that it is displayed primarily to loved ones rather than to outgroup). These heroic traits tend to be assigned to beloved, but auxiliary characters, which necessarily draw less admiration. Some might argue wisdom to be an example of heroic feminine, but I think wisdom isn’t strongly gendered either way- while the wise woman is an acceptable expression of femininity, there are still more wise men represented.
Moving from the conceptual to the practical, skills that are coded masculine are universally more respected than skills coded feminine. The oldest example of this is physical combat versus childcare. While you could argue that motherhood and childcare is well-venerated, it’s tiers below the glory found in violence. Even in the modern day, the humanities have become less valued as more women have moved into them, and STEM and entrepreneurship (which retain majority male population) are most respected. While being a doctor is respectable in the US, nations with majority female doctors respect and pay their doctors far less.
This extends even into personal interests- masculine-coded interests like sports and cars are treated as universal, or at least understandable and immune to critique in the mainstream. Meanwhile, feminine-coded interests such as fashion and makeup are seen as frivolous and vain.
I feel the relationship between disrespect towards women themselves and disrespect towards feminine-coded skills, traits, and interests is, like most such things, a feedback loop with no clearly identifiable start or end. But I do hold that misogyny is at the root of women being able to buck their gender roles more easily than men.
The trouble for a man staying in a female-dominated, or even gender-equal-population field, is that he cannot use it to demonstrate his masculinity. If something is done 90% by women, then it cannot be used to prove manliness to women - after all, how can it separate him from them when they could do the exact same thing themselves! (It might be the case that various LGBTQ women, don’t count for this psychologically/socially.)
My fear, not full-on belief, but fear, is that the reason things are this way is that a sufficiently large chunk of cis heterosexual women don’t actually want the situation to change, because their selection criteria are different from mens’.
My hope is that it’s going to collapse by women realizing that they can be attracted to men that break the traditional pattern, and eventually this will reach sufficient critical mass to collapse the culture’s self-reinforcing effect. A lot of the conditions that created the current culture’s norms aren’t holding anymore.
But since the level of nature vs nurture is unknown, I don’t see that as guaranteed. Transhumanism may ultimately render it irrelevant by the time it would normally take effect.
Five years ago a young man went down into the haunted mines, promising to clear it of evil. Today he emerged, covered in ancient armour stained with the blood of unimaginable horrors, glowing of magic. He demands we dig deeper.
“Finally, you’re back!”
Karlof stepped into the wooden mining shack. The ancient metal of his armor, meant for a war forgotten by time, clanked as he walked inside. The green patina of the armor was stained with the black blood of countless horrors.
Karlof looked over at the woman who welcomed him. She sat in a wooden chair, gray hair coming down to her shoulders. Her simple outfit looked worn from years of use.
“You can’t stay here,” Karlof said. “We need to warn the village. We must dig deeper into-” After a moment, he looked at the woman again.
“Mom?” He asked.
“We’ve been waiting for you for so long,” the woman said. “They said you would come back soon. Listen, Karl, a lot of things have changed since you were gone. The government-”
But Karl didn’t wait. If his mother was still alive, perhaps some of the others from the village might still be, too. He opened the door, still expecting the charred remnants he had seen in the vision far below.
He was startled by the loud “FWEEEEEEEE” of a whistle. The head of the whistleblower turned and faced him. Two fiery orange eyes with pupils slitted like a cat’s drew his attention. Above them, rising from the new woman’s head, rose two horns, curling backwards. A pair of fangs pushed downwards from bored lips. She was wearing a sturdy outfit of cloth and leather.
The horned woman looked back at him for a moment, before turning her head and shouting. “Alright, ‘e’s out! You can get back to digging!” In the corner of his eye, Karlof saw the mass of some huge brass contraption move.
“What’s the meaning of this?!” he said, looking first at the horned woman and then at his mother.
“The government was taken over by these Otokyaryi, oh, several winters ago now.” Said Karlof’s mother.
“We lost the war?” Karl said the words, but after years of fighting in the dark recesses of the Underworld itself, he had almost entirely forgotten the fighting on the surface.
“No,” objected the horned woman. “We bought this territory fair and square.” She gestured in a “come here” motion with her hand. “Now step on out of there. We’re two million pounds overbudget and three months behind schedule.”
Karlof just stared back in disbelief.
“Well don’t just stand there looking at me,” said the horned woman. “If this energy well isn’t finished and converting nightmares into crystal rock in the next three months, I’m going to get fired. You didn’t think magic carpets fueled themselves, did you?”
The road to ending “slut shaming” of women probably goes through the town of “destroy the norm of giving men status for being sexually successful, and of treating male virgins as disgusting losers”.
I say this because I think some of the desire to enforce sex norms on women relates to the nature of sexual access as a status good for men.
If a low-partner man gets into a relationship with a high-partner woman, he is considered lower status for it, under multiple frameworks. Under a “promiscuous women are low-value” framework, it lowers his value by suggesting he had to ‘settle’ for a woman other men could extract sex from but didn’t consider worthy of commitment. Under a “anyone having a high partner count means they are high-value” framework, it suggests that the woman is higher value than he is (which is risky if men are judged more on status than women are), and that the way for him to raise his value is to have lots of meaningless sex with lots of people.
If a low-partner man and a high-partner man are in the same community, the low-partner man is lower status than the high-partner man is, since masculinity is contingent on success, and success with women is counted as one category of success. (In fact, one of the socially damaging aspects of virginity / lower partner count is that it is considered “unmasculine”.)
This creates a strong motivation for status war. If low-partner men can attack promiscuity in women, they can create a situation where women have partner counts closer to their own. Failing that, they can lower the status of such women so that they’re at least not higher status than themselves.
Unless their sexual success is decoupled from their social status, men will always have a motivation to wage status war through “slut shaming”.
The way to alter the status of high-partner men is not through straight men themselves, since their value in this respect is conferred by women. (Low-partner men are already low status, so they have less social power to alter these very norms.) It’s through the actions of women.
One way to do this is for women to start treating promiscuous men the way promiscuous women were treated in the past. If women started treating high-partner men like hot potatoes that are disgusting, low-status (like male virgins are now), and aren’t worthy of sex (not just commitment, as getting a woman to commit isn’t considered special), it would radically alter the status dynamic in male communities.
Another possibility is if commitment from women somehow became more difficult to get, and thus was considered special and more valuable than sex, but it’s unclear under what conditions this would emerge as a stable equilibrium. Current conditions don’t favor it or any obvious paths to it. The traditional norm is the opposite - women trade sex to get commitment. If this could be changed, it would increase the status of a man the woman finally ‘settled’ for. (It appears to be true in the opposite direction currently.)
Another way to do it is to treat low-partner and high-partner men the same in a very noticeable way so that men will start internalizing that being high-partner isn’t the same as getting the “approval from women” they need to prove their masculinity and raise their status. This doesn’t mean in fields unrelated to sex. The status comes from sex, so they have to be treated as equally sexually desirable, perhaps even the virgins.
All of these courses of action have their own problems. Depending on the balance of nature vs nurture, some or all of them may not even be feasible. They may do secondary damage. They may just not be enjoyable to a lot of people.
It was the year feminists agreed that “dick is abundant and low value”
In short, gymtw is centered around the idea that women deserve to be directly compensated by men for the emotional labor they provide.
Misandry has gone mainstream, and unfortunately the irony seems to be lost on men.
women are using performative misandry as both comedy and coping mechanism; a way to bond with each other and commiserate about the seeming inevitability of their oppression. In a way, it’s the logical alternative to the real violence we might have enacted if we had decided to actually revolt.
Even if feminists sincerely did want to kill all men, ban all men, or bathe in male tears, it would be a logistically difficult and absurd proposition.
And I won’t lie: Making you uncomfortable — not afraid or hurt, but just a little bit discomfited — is part of the point.
Feminist misandry is an act of reclamation. It’s a way to defang the accusations that at worst get women killed and at best get them ostracized. It is an extended exercise in harmless trolling.
[K]ill all men’ — even in jest — is a reminder of the historical role white women play in white masculine violence against men of color.
The world is actively hostile to women in a way that it isn’t to men.
The rising prominence of feminism in mainstream discourse does mean that fewer men will automatically have access to unearned privilege.
That is, after all, the goal: To convert our society into the meritocracy we have long claimed already existed.
I don’t really have anything to say about these quotes, but I find them interesting to read, like elaborate permutations of a discourse rubik’s cube.
I recognize about half of the quotes and could tell you the authors and outlets where they appeared. Hate-sharing and clickbait seem to work better on me than I’d like to admit.
“When you say ‘I hate you’, do you mean hate me?”
“I don’t hate just you personally, I hate every single person in a group you belong to and find that this seething hatred a great way to bond”
A lot of ace people are LGBTQ. I typically go with the standard definition of “if you experience any significant same-sex attraction, you’re LGBTQ,” and just being asexual or aromantic doesn’t disqualify you from that. I would also consider people who experience no attraction at all (asexual and aromantic) as LGBTQ too, but that’s just me personally. But people who are asexual and heteroromantic or aromantic and heterosexual are not LGBTQ.
What I really objected to in that post was the idea of categorizing an HIV activism blog as “aphobic”
My mother didn’t allow me to have fake guns as a child. At the time, it was a choice to reject glorification of violence. These days, it would be a choice to ensure one’s child does not get shot.
I had an idea. What if we just stop gendering toys?
I had LEGOs and they came in boy colors, but I didn’t know, I was five years old and I thought they were fun to play with! What if we gave kids functional toys and imaginative toys and anything in between, and just ignored gender?
Less profitable.
Lego started selling girl Legos and got such a massive surge in profits you would think three new Star wars movies came out. Not that Legos were boy only in the first place.
This is actually the reason they started the whole “Girl LEGOs” thing in the first place. The LEGO sets for girls are the result of a lot of focus group testing in addition to market research, if I remember correctly. It isn’t actually arbitrary. The things make bank, and the previous ones just didn’t sell as many kits to girls.
so I’ve been blogging fairly consistently on here for the past two years now but I haven’t received my first check yet, do I have to contact @staff myself or
You need a sponsor like Blacktower IFG or General Atomics. Private sponsors pay a bit better than state sponsors usually, but they’re harder to get.
If you’re willing to go for lower bids, you can always get cash from the Middle Kingdom, but you might have to swallow a bit more of your pride than you would for one of the Western nations.
I’d tell you some of mine, but my contract prohibits disclosure. (That’s par for the course for most sponsors that aren’t political campaigns.)
This is a pretty good article about the town next to the one I grew up in. I knew the young mayor, who is quoted in the article, as an even younger man, goofy and occasionally annoying to me, but definitely a good dude. I dated his sister and their family always made me feel accepted.
But there’s no hope here. Delphi is slightly bigger than my town, but it shrinks every year. As the article points out, there is an incredible generational gap here. It’s not just that the town is run down and kind of boring (beautiful as it actually is), there are also less and less opportunities to scrape a living out of the dirt or off the factory floor. There are sharp racial divisions as well, which this article doesn’t explore. The hog processing plant mentioned in the article employs a lot of immigrants and there is certainly some lingering resentment toward them, maybe for supposedly taking some of the few jobs, maybe for their inability or refusal to integrate. Probably both. The entire county is sharply segregated.
I really encourage reading this if you have a while. Living in small town America, at least there in central Indiana, feels a lot like dying- because that’s what it is. It’s the slow withering death of hope and promise.
Of course I’m not saying that I don’t think it’s worth living there. Having just moved out to Sandy, OR from Portland, I can say that I’ve actually really missed living in a rural area. The truth is, life itself is looking more and more bleak no matter where you are, so you should just stay wherever feels like home.
I’ve lived in towns that were slowly dying and in economically vibrant towns. There’s a difference, in the psychology, in the politics, in everything.
And, on paper, on a meta level, the Left absolutely should have something to offer the citizens of failing local communities.
But, the Left didn’t.
And, Indiana feels like dying, and it feels like nobody cares.
I mean, what could the left have offered these communities that they didn’t already offer (even if they potentially failed to deliver on due to divided government)?
The standard Democratic politician supports more infrastructure spending, renegotiating trade deals, bolstering unions, job re-education programs, more funding for public schools (which would probably disproportionately benefit poor rural areas that can’t easily fund their own schools), bailing out the car manufacturers, tax incentives for rural development, more access to health care, and the (broadly defined) welfare state.
Sure, these communities probably were going to economically decline anyway even if all those policies were done 100% as their designers had hoped, but I don’t see anything short of extremely inefficient and absurd crony capitalist subsidies for companies to stay put and absurd regulations against automation saving these towns economically, and if those things were done they would amount to basically be a very large (indirect) handout for the very same people who despise handouts when smaller amounts of money than it would take to save these towns are given to black and brown people in the cities who are also struggling and feel like nobody cares.
Which is why I can’t help but conclude that the resentment of the left of these rural flyover communities is more (though not entirely) cultural/racial/religious/ethno-nationalist.
It’s true there’s nothing (ie, not a lot) reasonable that technocratic center-leftism can offer dying communities. And because the Democratic party has a lot of fact-checking instincts that prevents outright lying, there’s not much they would.
But you don’t need to resort to ulterior motives to understand that people will vote for the party that DOES offer a solution (even if its a lie) over the one who says “we can’t solve your problem.”
And if a significant politically-dominant block of your country has an insoluble problem, then guess what, your country will keep voting for outright liars until something resolves their crisis.
A lot of the Trump angst focuses too much on specific American factors or the moral failings of various politicians in not reacting appropriately (it’s not the fault of Democratic messaging or their various small ball policy proposals). But we can see with the rise of an isolationist far-right across among almost every developed Western country, that it’s a fundamental reaction to trends across the whole world in the last few decades.
I should clarify that I don’t think economic distress is not a factor in this, it absolutely is. Maybe I downplayed it above. I believe that it is a necessary condition for the rise of the populist-nationalist-isolationist right. It doesn’t seem to be sufficient to explain what has happened, though. Especially when poor immigrants and poor racial and religious minorities aren’t flocking to these populist parties despite equal or greater economic distress. Especially when it seems like education rather than income is more predictive of support of support for these parties.
There are a lot of lefty politicians who will pretend that technocratic center-leftism will save these communities, and offer it up as a solution, and yet that wasn’t the message that resonated. I don’t think (most of) these people are racist or xenophobic, at least not in the harsh colloquial sense of those words, but I just can’t explain Trump or Brexit or LePen or Alternative for Germany without there being some sort of intense cultural/demographic anxiety involved (not all of which is irrational, I do think for instance that Germany probably took in too many refugees). Why this anxiety crosses borders is simply that, for good and for ill, globalization and neoliberalism allow for more cultural and demographic change than is normal in the west.
Yeah for certain there are a lot of center-left politicians offering lamppost solutions* when none might exist. And as we saw from America to Greece, much of the technocratic establishment is extremely eager to knee-cap far-left parties which precludes finding out whether their solutions would quell this uprising.
But the answer might be nihilism. In a society structured on identity-through-job, modernity (including increasing financialization, free trade, and automation) might just kill enough communities that the entire democratic consensus falls apart. I think it’s important to remove “having a job” as a necessary part of social identity (both for individuals and emergent structures like small towns) in the face of this capitalist revolution, but that’s not exactly easy to implement as a federalized governing agenda.
*As in when a drunk loses his keys on the street at night, and assumes they are under the lamppost, because if they aren’t he can’t find them anyway.
Wage subsidies might have been able to do the trick, and economists like them. They don’t seem to be on anyone’s radar, however, and the EITC is yearly which isn’t often enough to work.
Some part of me suspects the reason they aren’t on peoples’ radars is that rural whites were used as the fulcrum for identity politics, but maybe they’re simultaneously too boring while being too left wing.
Attention is a finite resource, so every thing that you care a lot about, there will be something you don’t give a shit about (but not necessarily vice versa).
Newton: if I have seen further than others it is only because I totally neglected a whole bunch of things other people consider absolutely vital
an intellectual: everything you eat is made of chemicals.
another intellectual: “chemicals” as used in colloquial speech typically refers to isolated compounds created by industrial processes that are not commonly found in the natural environment, some of which we know are toxic to humans and have been banned for use in food production and some of which we still use but suspect are not conducive to good health.
Why do so many people continue to insist that not telling your partner you once did sex work before you even met them is tantamount to some massive betrayal?
“But funereal-disease,” they keep saying, “what if I didn’t want to date a sex worker? I have a right to make an informed decision about staying in a relationship.” Indeed you do, but where do you draw that line? How many personal sexual details must someone divulge before their partner’s consent is sufficiently informed? Is it a betrayal if you’ve had an STI in the past? If you’ve attended an orgy? If you’ve experimented with people outside your orientation? If you’ve engaged in a kink that you know your partner finds repulsive? Once you’ve coupled up, are you no longer allowed private memories?
Apparently not when it comes to sex, because sex work, according to the brain trust at reddit dot com slash relationships, isn’t just another part of one’s sexual history. It’s something inherently and irreversibly tainting. It’s something so all-consuming that not disclosing it means you’ve “tricked someone” into marriage. It’s a bait and switch, clearly: you expected a normal woman, but instead you got one of those icky sluts. Because if she’s capable of doing the unspeakable, of ~selling her body~, then she’s obviously got nothing in common with the woman you thought you loved. Sex workers are never clever or funny or worth marrying on personal merits. Either she’s a worthwhile person or she’s a whore.
I’m sure this is a part of it, but I’d also be kinda pissed if I was married to someone for 5 years and I found out through someone else that they were a geophysicist for 3 years and had somehow avoided the topic of the entire time we were together. How you sell your labour is a weirdly significant part of your identity, and it would definitely feel like a significant omission: what else is she hiding? Infidelity? Drug Trafficking? A pivotal role in the end of the Weimar Republic?
It’s less the fact that she didn’t tell him and more the fact that it seems that it probably took intentional effort on her part to hide it from him.
Which is not even to mention that if it’s something you could easily be blackmailed for (as it sounds like she might be being threatened here based on the comments) that’s definitely something that should come up before the “joint tax returns” part of the relationship.
Sex work is orders of magnitude more stigmatized than geophysics, though. I don’t think hiding something you’re likely to be marginalized for and likely to be suffering internalized shame about is indicative of an inherently deceitful personality. If my partner, after almost four years, came out to me as bi, I wouldn’t wonder what else he was hiding, because being closeted out of shame and/or necessity isn’t the same as enjoying deceiving others.
it seems to me that even without the stigma of sex work, the original problem of how much you must divulge to one’s partner before sex is a problem of guessing the relevance of one’s personal information to a partner. is my lack of sexual history relevant? is my disability? my job history? ideally, if someone’s consent is contingent on information, they should seek it out before engaging in the activity, right? granted, i don’t know how practical that is.
ideally, if someone’s consent is contingent on information, they should seek it out before engaging in the activity, right?
THIS. If having particular information is very important to you, ask!
I still feel like there’s a lack of easy ways to enumerate every possible thing I want to know about a partner.
When was the last time you were tested? Have you ever killed anyone? Are you a werewolf? Etc etc.
I’m all for changing the expected set of questions based on broader social trends (like the more recent move towards assuming by default that a person shouldn’t be expected to disclose being trans unless it’s explicitly mentioned as a deal breaker and they can do so safely) but it seems that there does need to be a list, even if it’s fuzzy and unspoken.
Wouldn’t just asking if someone did sex work before be considered an insult by many people? Along with asking them if they’re trans?
Being “asexual” is listed, along with being insulting and demeaning (as if it was equivalent to those things), as an abusive behavior that should be a reason for societal outcry.
Other sites say that “withholding sex” is fine when it is due to a medical condition. However, the person not providing sex is then expected to get their condition treated as soon as possible so they are capable of providing sex again:
So, not getting your sex-preventing medical condition treated is abuse, and not “refusing to offer alternate means of pleasure”, whatever that means, is also considered abuse.
And what I get from this is that if you’re in a relationship, you are outright expected to provide sex unless you have a medical exemption.
It’s not like this kind of expectation fuels marital rape and relationship violence or anything.
Yet another site adds to this, noting that mental illness is not a valid excuse unless you try to fix it so that you can provide sex “normally”.
At worst, withholding can manifest itself in ways that may be a red flag for general controlling or manipulative behavior, or it can be done in ways that could be mean or abusive for other reasons (such as if it’s done insultingly).
However, the action itself is not wrong and no one is owed sex even when the person refusing to have it is trying to control others through that. They still have a right to refuse any sex they don’t want and to set whatever standards they wish before they have sex.
It’s too dangerous to allow being in a relationship to be a default “yes, you gotta have sex or you’re evil.”
On the other hand, it isn’t fair to sexual people to demand that they be in sexless relationships.
The middle ground, I think, is that anyone can refuse sex, and anyone can refuse to stay in the relationship, and “we have too little/too much sex” is considered a valid, non-abusive grounds to leave the relationship.
-belittling their appearance (includes body shaming and any appearance-based insults)
-SUICIDE BAITING, saying they deserve to die, saying you hope they die
-false accusations and/or attempting to spread false information about them
-threats of any variety
-ignoring/disrespecting their identity (includes misgendering, insulting or ignoring racial/ethnic/religious background, assertions they are lying about their sexuality/race/religion/gender, etc.)
-denying things said/done to them actually happened
There are no caveats wrt who this list does and does not apply to. No one deserves bullying/abuse, not even: actual abusers, rapists, murderers, Donald Trump, white supremacists, neo-nazis, bigots, poachers, PETA members, child molesters, not even (dare I say it) people who draw upsetting things. No one deserves it. No one. Period. The end.
Feel free to add on to this list.
The notes of these post are absolutely full of people who keep insisting, in unambiguous language, that their chosen targets do deserve to be bullied and killed.
Here is why that is not a good thing:
1- If you were to declare that certain people “deserve” to be abused and defend the concept, who decides what an acceptable target is? How do you make sure that they don’t try to abuse and expand their powers to punish everyone they don’t like with relative impunity?
Should the government decide who doesn’t deserve rights? Should popular people decide? What about angry mobs?
There are even many cases in which abusers try to portray themselves as victims in order to direct the mobs against the actual victims, and anyone who tries to stop them in general. They don’t want to make anything better for anyone, they want a socially-acceptable excuse to abuse others.
I would not want to grant anyone the power to strip their targets of all rights and abuse them with impunity.
2- If you defend the idea that it’s okay to dehumanize and abuse certain kinds of people, what defense do you have against groups that think they have a right to do it you? Nearly everyone thinks that they are the hero and that their enemies are a threat to be stopped at all costs, and therefore any kind of nastiness is justified.
What if the people you don’t like are in government and can turn this entire thing around and punish you? What if the rapists, abusers, neo-nazis, and etc. have their own angry mobs?
How will you stop them from going after their targets if you just destroyed the rules and social norms that prevented it?
3- A lot of people with PTSD, depression, and other illnesses feel like they deserved abuse. The idea that no one deserves abuse can, at least on some level, reduce those types of thoughts.
But if people do think that some people deserve it and that they are horrible enough to be one of them? What reason would they have to even ask for help then?
This attitude can be very unhealthy to various types of mentally ill people.
4- You can try to stop harmful behavior while still respecting the perpetrator’s rights as much as possible.
For example, if someone abuses you, you get to defend yourself. You don’t get to declare the abuser a subhuman and torture them to death.
Any suffering that must be added to the world should ideally be minimal and directed entirely towards preventing greater suffering. Any kind of punishment must be aimed at deterrence and maybe keeping dangerous people away from potential victims, not at causing unnecessary pain.
No one is helped if “bad people” suffer, but it is helpful if “bad people” are stopped. Making someone stop and making someone suffer are different things and you can do the first thing while trying to minimize the second one.
If you would oppose the death penalty and inhumane prisons, there is no reason not to also oppose internet vigilantism and bullying based on the idea that bad people deserve suffering.
A: *makes suggestion* B: I think that’s a bad idea. A: what are you triggered bro?? did I trigger you?? why so sensitive???
when exactly did the “triggered” meme escape the containment field and become a standard part of political discourse, even for people who are notionally in favour of content warnings / safe spaces, and used as a bludgeon against criticism that isn’t even personal.
It’s not like “triggered” is even an argument against something. It’s just a way to dismiss something without even actually discussing it.
in this case we’ve already gone one step beyond to dismissing objections on the basis that the person objecting clearly has no valid grounds and is simply using triggered as a weapon, even when they’re not claiming to be triggered.
it’s the “chicken, McFly??” for year of our lord 2k16
triggered, hon? drowning in your white cismale tears lmao, your life is so hard isn’t it boo hoo hoo go fuck yourself :)) lmao
[this is ironic]
there is actually an unspoken implication that only certain classes of people can suffer from mental disorders like PTSD, so a white cis male claiming to be legitimately triggered by a particular situation would indeed be subject to ridicule.
it’s the equivalent of that “scared of feminism? well why don’t you just man-up and stop being a whiny little bitch” discourse.
Aye.
I think that’s part of why it escaped containment. “Man up” was already a meme in use, so some people thought they could do it back with a different spear, but then it turned out that using various “lol wussy” spears can be turned back on you yet again.
That and when “triggers” expanded in scope, Conservatives assumed it was secretly a method to control the discourse.
IT/IP Capitalism is well past incompatible with private property.
The goverment should fdxorce Keurig to provide free reusable K-cup modules and compensate all Keurig owners for all the genuine K-cups they have ever bought since the DRM was introduced.
Intel? Get your mask data, VHDL, process flow information, chipfab design documentation, etc on Github in 72 hours or we take it from you and put your criminal leadership in America Prison with the muggers and brutes. And then provide an independently verifiable way to kill the Mangement Engine to everybody.
Everybody who ever had a device bricked? You’re fixing it, or replacing it. I don’t care if you have to go bankrupt calling up custom re-implementations for decade-old discontinued chips. My garnishment of your wages shall sit with you for seven times seven generations.
Thou shalt not suffer software to be closed-source. And you shall simply have to find a way to deal with it.
We did not oppose Communism with fire and sword in foreign lands to have a degraded shadow of its indignities enacted in our own country by self-interested corporations.
This is an interesting approach, and one I find quite interesting. I am disinclined to find most attacks on IP very moving, since I know too many people who mostly seem profoundly offended that they can’t be free riders on the creative and technical efforts of others.
This approach focuses on ownership rights though, and more of what I consider “copy trolling” and otherwise engaging in a government enforced captured “razor business” with eg. Kcups, which doesn’t seem to outright forbid the inventor of the kcup system from continuing to sell the machines?
Toning down the aggression yet another notch…
The big thing I want to establish is that you can rent stuff, or you can sell it, but you can’t fake-sell it. More realistically, I propose a “hardware ownership act” and heavy encouragement of an abandonment license.
(I have no idea whether this has the slightest chance of being constitutional. Doubt it.)
The abandonment license law would:
- Make “dead” intellectual property that is not being used pass into the public domain.
- Make patent trolling illegal (since it revolves around not using the IP)
- Require various documentation (not neccessarily full source, but definitely API documentation and permissions) to be released when manufacturer support (such as cloud servers or the sale of consumables) ends.
The hardware ownership law would establish that if a piece of tangible hardware is sold to somebody for a lump sum without personally negotiated contracts, and the buyer is not required to relinquish it under any ordinary circumstances, then that piece of hardware is the alloidal property of the buyer. They have a fairly broad degree of rights to hack it, destroy it, reverse-engineer it, or use it in ways other than intended by the seller and the worst that the seller can do is to have the warranty and tech support department tell them to kindly shove it. They also have the right to be furnished with various documentation and not to have their hardware keep secrets from them (beyond very narrowly-drawn “root certificate” type stuff.)
Keurig can still sell coffemakers and K-cups. They can release new versions of coffeemakers with new types of K-cups and they will have a K-cup monopoly until knockoffs can catch up. They can void warranty for anybody who uses third party K-cups.
But they can’t keep the interface totally secret and they especially can’t use licensing, IP law, or other methods to prevent people from making knock-off K-cups.
They also can’t choke off third-party replacement parts as long as said parts are accurately labelled.
The thing that specifically got me angry was Samsung bricking all of a specific model of phone. There was reason behind this (the phone is a recalled product due to risk of exploding) but this is still to me a spectacular violation of the folk contract of selling durable goods, whatever the unnegotiated license terms state.
Other things this is meant to target:
- Modding or jailbreaking of all kinds. Google’s Nexus phones present a good example of how you can act liberally w/r/t this but still get many of the security benefits of a locked down system (basically, you can choose between “root access” and “locked-down, certified Google system” and change between them, but some features that rely on Google’s cloud infrastructure or auto-updates only work when locked/certified).
- Microsoft going after people who tried to make a hacker’s driver for the Kinect (before they realized that they could make money on this)
- Modding/jailbreaking Playstations and the older Xboxes
- Hacking, decompilation, and the like of hardware drivers for various devices.
- DRM on consumables and wear items for operating durable equipment (ink cartridges, 3D printer cartridges, K-cups, etc)
Likewise, I’m typically suspicious of people who want to attack IP, but this proposal is quite interesting, and could shift market incentives away from planned obsolescence.
Deep in the darkest recesses of the great Mind at the core of the World, something not entirely unlike circuits lit up in what humans would call ‘amusement’. Its 3,768,423,281 puppets, each coated in flesh, with hairs and skin and sweat, were performing their functions admirably.
They were, in fact, extensions of one vast mind, and each could be held as morally responsible as any other. The pretense of individuality was but a sick illusion to further aggravate the true human race.
In the space of the woman’s sentence, the great beast sent another 3,445,222 dick pics.
What can be offered to the White Working Class in exchange for not burning the world down? Free healthcare and more welfare seem desirable in themselves but didn't stop Brexit.
The real answer is “respect”, but I’m not sure how to operationalize this.
I’ve never been good at treating “the dignity of all human life” and “respect for everyone just because they are human” as anything other than slogans. Nobody deserves to suffer, and nobody deserves to have their rights taken away, but I think of “respect” and “dignity” as different than that, as necessarily involving desert. To respect someone in a nontrivial way is to assess them as valuable and full of good qualities. If you “respect” everyone no matter their qualities, then “respect” is meaningless, like giving a gold medal to everyone regardless of performance.
The white working class certainly has some good qualities - some of the auto workers I meet are among the hardest-working and most dependable people I know - but again, I feel like sticking my thumb on the balance makes respect false and meaningless. If I think hard enough, I can respect some qualities in almost everyone - but it’s hard for me to deny that there are a lot of things about the white working class I don’t respect, and if I gave them special treatment in the Respect Sweepstakes just because they have a lot of votes, I would think that’s pretty dishonest too.
I think this ties into the question of “does the white working class want special treatment”? That is, if all they want is to be respected the same amount as every other group, then fine, tell the #KillAllWhites people to tone it down and then everyone will be happy. If they want to be respected more than other groups, obviously that’s a problem and the source of this whole “the white working class is trying to defend their privilege” sort of thing.
I think there’s kind of a middle ground, which is that most white areas in the US until recently had very low black populations and practically zero populations most other minority groups. The white working class was alone, they could do whatever they wanted, they could practice their own shared culture in institutions geared completely to them, and they were pretty happy with it.
Then immigrants came in and they faced demands - both literal demands from elites and figurative demands from the exigencies of society - to deal with it in ways that they didn’t like. And I don’t think what they want here is a world where they rule everything and everything happens their way and there are lots of immigrants but the immigrants are second-class citizens. I think their demand is “Look, we were very happy here with no immigrants, we’re less happy with more immigrants, there’s no reason why we should have to take immigrants, why are you insisting that we do?”
As far as I know, nobody has really addressed this except the open borders people, who say “taking immigrants is a moral obligation”. Anyone short of open borders people has no answer to this except to confuse it with the sort of racism where they want a society with lots of races and themselves on the top, which most white people reject and understandably get angry when they’re accused of.
On the other hand, most Trump voters are in areas without many immigrants (and for that matter, without many blacks), making racism and principled-immigration-opposition equally surprising. I don’t know if the immigration aspect is completely metaphorical (the invasion of incomprehensible foreign forces into a world they once understood), if it’s demographic/political (Republicans would have won the last umpteen elections if Hispanics didn’t vote, and a country ruled entirely by Republicans would look very different), if they’re happy with their own hometowns but angry about what they view as the state of the wider country, or if they’re just very confused.
But I think what they want is respect along the lines of “Yes, you were here first, except for the Indians who don’t count, and that gives you the right to determine who you invite or don’t invite into your country. We won’t let new people in unless you like and approve of them and think they’re a good fit for your community.”
Since that’s never gonna happen, maybe we can just give them a basic income instead.
How terrifying is it for the prospect of effective governance that even ranked choice voting is considered too complex for some voters?
Not that disenfranchisement isn’t dangerous - if people who couldn’t even understand ranked choice voting couldn’t vote, it could undermine their ability to upset the applecart when they notice bad changes in their lives and give them even less weight in the fake utility function of the legislature. But even with that considered, “rank these guys by how much you like them” shouldn’t be that hard.
Suggestion: we petition the Trump administration to expand the use of nuclear energy. Despite being really good for the environment, it’s coded as being anti-environmentalist, or at least anti-hippyliberal. Also can be postured as “rebuilding America” and providing domestic blue collar jobs.
I heard he was talking with someone from the American Nuclear Association some months ago. This isn’t a bad idea, but it would take some clever plotting to make it explode (metaphorically) in such a way as to catch his attention.
“What? Like, a disabled protagonist? How would that even work? How could someone with a disability be the hero in an action show?” local anime trash boy wonders while sitting next to his box sets of Full Metal Alchemist, showing no hint of irony or self awareness.
It’s not a disability if they have something that completely negates the downsides and turns it into an upside. Just like how Daredevil being blind doesn’t mean he’s disabled, when he has super sonar and is superhumanly perceptive and suffers no ill affects of blindness. Having two metal limbs you can turn into weapons isn’t a disability, even if once in a while they break.
Congratulations, you just stumbled upon the problem disabled activists have with the term disabled. Disabled people can be competent and capable. Disabled people can be better than their abled peers. This does not negate their disability. For this reason, you may see the term “differently abled.”
Daredevil is still blind. He can’t watch TV or use a computer. He can read something if the ink is raised, but not if it is on a screen or if the item is laminated/really smooth. He is still an amazing lawyer and can kick ass.
The Winter Soldier may be able to do things with his metal arm that is way beyond the ability of any fleshy, organic arm. His metal arm is still an accessibility device. He still uses it to open doors, get dressed, prepare food, etc. Things that don’t require superhuman strength.
Pretty much, I see people referencing things like Iron Man where the disability never presents any actual hindrance to the character, which I assume is kind of the big thing about wanting disability representation: overcoming hindrance.
And let’s face it, how would you react to a hero flummoxed by something like, say, trying to put their pants on?
I think what’s getting glossed over here is, going back to the point about hindrance, someone like Edward Elric just acts like a normal-ass person. They may technically be disabled/differently-abled, but “local anime trash boy” doesn’t see Edward Elric as any different or lesser than anybody else, possibly, if we’re going to accuse him of that.
Now, whether “distinct representation” is any better or worse than “this character has a disability but it doesn’t make them different from anybody else” is a question I’d rather personally leave to the wisdom of the crowds, but I think what some people want from “disabled heroes” does not exactly line up with “guy who has a cyberpunk prosthetic that is perfectly functional like a flesh-and-bone arm.”
In fact, rarely will we get very intimate about the personal routines of characters, like, say, their bathroom habits. Little things that could highlight what life with their hypothetical disability is like.
(For what it’s worth, my current problematic fave is an anime boy who presently has lost the use of an arm and an eye due to neural-interface-overload, but it’s not so bad because he gets them back when he plugs into his giant robot.)
