Oceans Yet to Burn
Month
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.
This doesn’t seem extreme to you?
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?
TIL that the guy who created the Wall Street “charging bull” statue, Arturo Di Modica, still owns it.
He should just move it. It would be hilarious.
Especially if he only moved it, like, ten feet, so that the bull was charging unimpeded while the girl stood defiantly in front of absolutely nothing.
rotate it 180 degrees, so they’re both facing down some unseen threat
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?
Acid attacks in London. FGM in Detroit.
We were promised it wouldn’t happen. Bad behavior is only caused by economics and Western oppressors, right?
“Why is National Populism gaining electoral support?” Gee, I don’t know, I wonder why.
by 2025 all mental health institutions will refer to the non-mentally ill as “normies” and the term will be present in relevant legal documents
Jesus Christ
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.
Jesus Christ
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.
Edit: May also be of interest to @theunitofcaring.
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.
Better argument is needed for 2020.
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 boyNuckelavee 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.Restoration Embodiment and Photokinetic Cloning
The universe is now an shell of maximum-healing clones of me, expanding at the speed of light.
Sweet.
Ambition Embodiment and Heat Blast
BURNIN’ THROUGH THE SKY 200 DEGREES THAT’S WHY THEY CALL ME MISTER FARENHEIT
Sonokinetic combat + Electrokinetic creature creation
[Stand Name: Red Hot Chili Pepper]
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.
Never give someone else direct write access to your mind.
Do you believe that women exist?
Congratulations! You are a feminist.
Women don’t exist. There are only men and smaller men capable of bearing children. Don’t let the lack of facial hair fool you.
@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.
According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, about 10% of men and 9% of women have experienced reproductive coercion (lying to your partner about birth control, sabotaging your partner’s birth control, refusing to use a condom).
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.
MFMMG??
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/bGiiWwhat 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.
@flowingblades That’s the kind thing that sort of person would never demand that women have to do, so I was being charitable and assuming ignorance instead of sexist hypocrisy.
Men’s Rights Advocates will go on and on about how they think a woman is going to trap them in to a pregnancy (why not get male birth control then?) but in reality, men are more likely to try to trap women to stay with them with a forced/unwanted pregnancy.
There’s even a whole fetish for forced impregnation.
1. Citation on the numbers or admitting you’re just estimating them, please. There are places where women discuss doing this sort of thing to men as well and it is similarly not seen as wrong locally.
2. What male birth control? A recent study for male hormonal birth control was cancelled due to side effects, vasalgel has not arrived in the West yet (but there was crowdfunding that some MRAs may have contributed to IIRC), and vasectomies are still fairly permanent. Condoms are the existing male birth control that is actually available to men.
3. Women have more options if this happens than men do. You have not actually defeated the MRA point that women have more reproductive rights (in the West) than men do.
4. It most likely is not MRAs doing this.
5. By making it adversarial, you have avoided the space where an actual gender-neutral law could get broader support to prohibit the practice in both directions, which MRAs would like, as well as the moral upper ground. Of course, once that hit the news it would spawn a few national conversations about women that weren’t particularly flattering, but the lack of those conversations is contributing both to what you would call “misogyny” and to the creation of MRAs.
6. No seriously, why are you making this adversarial, burning political energy on fighting men that would be okay with a law banning it instead of men that wouldn’t? You won’t demobilize MRAs with “women are the real victims, male suffering doesn’t matter” type stuff, you won’t prevent the creation of more MRAs, you won’t make passage of a law banning the practice more likely (and if you did make it more likely that would prove misandry on the part of society), all it does is provide reason to oppose something that shouldn’t really be opposed or, being more uncharitable here, prevent conversations where we find out how many women really think like this (enabling us to overcome that and educate them) and maybe spreading from that conversations about why.
I posted this as a comment over at Ozy’s blog, but I figured it was a long enough ramble that it might as well be a tumblr post. Cut because it’s yet another post about incels and Nice Guys and all that stuff you don’t want to read yet another post about
I’ve always believed that the grain of truth to “girls only go for assholes” culture is that…people who see this spectrum aren’t completely wrong.
In the world we live in, the world of Schrodinger’s Rapist, putting yourself out there at all is kind of an asshole move. Men (if they’re decent and paying attention) are aware that many women are sick of male attention, any male attention with a sexual bent, and that hitting on someone in any way has a strong potential to make that person really unhappy or uncomfortable, especially if you have poor social skills or trouble reading people.
If you’re aware that any attempt to make a romantic or sexual connection could really easily end up threatening and unpleasant, then you have a clear moral imperative to never hit on anyone. And therefore you’re alone, and you see people who do hit on people (assholes by definition) succeeding in their romantic endeavours, which leads to bitterness and resentment against both the “assholes” and against the women who “reward their behavior,” their behavior being “having the temerity to ever approach anyone.”
this is also what leads otherwise-decent people into “friendzone” thinking: approaching people in explicitly platonic ways doesn’t incur this worry that you’ll hurt them or make them uncomfortable with your attention. (This is of course contrary to reality: friendly approach by someone who gives you the heebie-jeebies is probably going to cause a lot more distress than a socially-competent pass. But I think this is the construction going on in their heads.) Because these people see themselves as performing the correct and moral actions of never subjecting women to explicitly sexual attention, they end up feeling like they deserve a reward.
i guess the point I’m trying to make is, I completely agree with your post and find it very illuminating, but I question the central thesis that there is a complete qualitative disconnect between the confidence of decent human behavior and the confidence of asshole hypermasculinity. existing as a man in patriarchal society means that acting with even a baseline, moderate level of confidence can make you a threatening figure.
People complain about the men posting anime girls, but I’m pretty sure half of those men would push the button to become anime girls if the option were available, regardless of whether they admit to it.
thank you, i think
It’s pokemon going to be four more years
I’m giving it a 60% estimate at this time, up from 50% in the first 30 days.
I’m not really cheering it, but I’m not seeing a whole lot of lessons being learned.
How are a bunch of Russians more in-touch about this than American Democrats.
This is a national shame.
To expand a bit, it’s clear to me at this point that I do have dysphoria, physical and socio-emotional, but I don’t think that I’m trans in any meaningful sense.
Becoming a guy emphatically does not feel like a solution or a goal. It feels like a whole other giant sack of trouble I don’t want. One which would be even more difficult to execute on and maintain because I don’t have the experience or expertise or fluency in it that I do with this one, and I’d have to outsource key infrastructure which would involve a lot of overhead and basic insecurity,.and let’s not even get into the brand equity, personal, professional, relational, etc costs of transition like holy fucking shit, and I don’t even want this? I don’t have this vision of how if things were just different I could be a guy and it would be right-feeling and comfortable and authentic. It wouldn’t. It’d just be more performance, and I’d be considerably worse at it.
That doesn’t make it any more comfortable to be permanently trapped in a Jessica Rabbit flesh-and-bone costume, but you don’t get to fix that unless you want to be a guy and frankly the available technologies for it aren’t that goddamn great even if you do..
What I really-really want is to not have all this unbelievably extra anatomy. It’s wrong-feeling, infrastructurally unsound, painful, inconvenient, unaesthetic and a huge pain in my ass. (Secondarily it would be nice to not have my gender be the screamingly obtrusive most noticeable thing about my body so the misogynists can tell from 200 feet away who to de-agentize and make jump through extra hoops and I can’t go outside at night without fear and etc, but if it were just that and not any of the physical stuff I think I could write this off as internalized misogyny. Unfortunately the physical stuff is worse.). And if I thought transition would really solve all of those problems and I could magic it by hitting a button, then yeah, it’d be the least-worst option, but I don’t think it would, and there isn’t a magic button, and “least-worst” just doesn’t feel like grounds for pursuing it.
@limnaia asked on the other thread:Seriously, though, have you considered perhaps you’re non-binary gendered and just want a body that reflects that?
I think it probably does net out to nonbinary. But “nonbinary” doesn’t seem to pull much problem-solving weight semantically or practically. Then what? Do solutions follow?
I know how this plays out. I’m bi/pan, and in my actual life that has washed up mostly as “not entitled to claim to be gay so living a superficially straight life while feeling bad and stuck and angry and bitter about it but also still alienated from queerness so whatever,” and I can already feel this going the same way but I don’t know what to do differently. Trans stuff in 2017 is about where sexuality stuff was in 1987 and there’s a reason that that went the way it did for me. And it feels higher-stakes to act on anything or claim a label wrt gender than sexuality, and we’ve established that I am a wuss.
And again, what’s the prize? There are no super great solutions out there to go claim. Hip reduction surgery doesn’t exist, T is a goddamn injectable because FDA said no to pills and all the effects I want are reversible, late, require major effort to support etc and all the effects that are permanent and reasonably quick are the ones I’m meh or wary of, and I probably couldn’t even get it on a nonbinary basis, IDK. (I talked to someone on here who has T gel and also E and an endocrinologist sympathetic to hormonal experimentation and was like, ooooh, but that’s a rough fucking goal to target, like, Endocrinologist Georg is an outlier adn should not have been sought)
This resonates with me very strongly. Particularly the “I think I would not fit in in exactly the opposite way if I lived as a man” part.
I feel like if I lived in a society that had a “female masculine” gender, like some cultures do, I would uncomplicatedly consider myself that gender. I’d probably at least try hormones IF the society would still recognize me as that gender.
I do not think I want to be seen as a guy. I think I want to try masculinizing my body to see if it brings my body more in line with my internal map, because I think it might.
I know that in my current culture I have the option of calling myself nonbinary, and I did for a while. But my mind associates nonbinary with a particular kind of cultural/social role (and most especially a role tied to a youth culture that I don’t identify with) that doesn’t match what I think I am very well.
I’m relating very much to this conversation. My relationship to sex and gender is also totally incompatible with a lot of the more popular queer theory (albeit for slightly different reasons to the above posters).
Like, the Right Thing to do these days in young queer circles is to minimise the relevance of biological sex (to the point of saying it doesn’t exist and that bodies can’t be gendered), and augment gender as this important aspect of your self that has nothing to do with your body, and that you sort of feel your way to.
… But my self-concept of gender is tied entirely to my body. know I’m a woman because I am biologically female and don’t (with a possible slight exception*) experience gender dysphoria. However, I’ve never had any real desire to feel ‘girly’, ‘feminine’, or ‘womanly’, gendered social treatment is something that I wish would get away from me forever, and I couldn’t even begin to guess how I’d respond in one of those hypothetical scenarios involving waking up in a male body. So, if “birth sex is irrelevant, gender is important and all about feels” becomes the status quo, then, well,… good luck navigating that, me.
Of course, I understand that the “birth sex irrelevant, gender important, bodies aren’t gendered” construct exists because its helpful to some people. I’m increasingly seeing all this as a competing access needs issue, not between cis and trans people (as many are prone to construe it), but between people who have a strong internal sense of gender which is separate to their body, and those whose sense of gender is very tied to their body. Group A needs “bodies aren’t gendered, your breasts and vagina are male if you want them to be”, and group B needs “Your gender= your birth sex + presence or absence of dysphoria”. And I’d imagine there are also a lot of people who’d prefer something in between the two, or an entirely different metric.
*This exception is muscle strength (or lack of it). This can’t be fixed on it’s own, and I don’t think identifying as a different gender would make me feel any more comfortable about it (it may even make me feel worse). It’s also the only sex characteristic I’m uncomfortable with, so I feel the cause is more likely to be related to my discomfort with feeling weak, or with gender roles/expectations, than discomfort with my sex.
This makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve never disputed whether I’m female. I’m not entirely sure what doing that would even mean.
I have and do wonder if I am happiest in an unmodified body, and I also know the connection between my unmodified body and “femininity” is part of the problem for me.
It seems very easy for the queer theory kids to say gender, expression, and bodies don’t link. But I still can’t seem to UNLINK mine.
I don’t think demanding that others deny the physical realities of our bodies is a legitimate access need.
I’m… I don’t know.
Like, I really really have trouble with “biology is cissexist,” when the reason “male” and “female” exist as classifications is not JUST to talk about social constructs but also to talk about reproductive capability. I can’t get past that.
But I also don’t have a problem with someone who isn’t saying “any body is male or female if you just say so” and is saying something more like “well my body is not the paradigmatic male body, but hormones and surgery have altered it enough that I feel comfortable calling it good.”
I don’t want to take that second thing away from people. But the first thing baffles me.
Everytime an anti-sj/”skeptical”/whatever says that using the right pronouns for trans people is a matter of courtesy I want to scream in the void
What’s wrong with saying it’s about respect/courtesy?
if it is about respect, then you misgender people you don’t respect (as we see SJ do to any outside The In Clique) and then accurate pronouns are something you must earn by adherence to their ideology
It’s about winning the local battle (pronouns), since it’s easier than winning the war (trans is legit), and maybe if the local battle is won people will go easier.
But it does have that side effect.
I’m not sure it matters. Feminism-the-political-movement and its institutional power is sexist to the point of classifying “forced envelopment” as something other than rape, denies biology (and I don’t mean “lol trans isn’t real” I mean “hormones aren’t a placebo”), is pretty messed up and out-of-sync with people on sex (explicit-verbal-consent-at-every-point for example is not how people, particularly most women, actually want it), effectively denies there are consequences to sexual liberalism, and so on.
They don’t appear to actually believe in female agency, either.
And they publish articles like “MRAs hated Mad Max Fury Road!”, even though if you travel into the MRA viper nest to check, the local MRAs are all “??? what” at this accusation.
The question, I think, is why they hate it so much to lie about it like that. And I think the reason is because the MRA narrative, at least, is not Traditionalism or Feminism, even though it required both of those to come into existence. It’s the first challenge to their stranglehold on the gender narrative in some time, and controlling the gender narrative is very valuable politically.
The MRA narrative isn’t spot-on either, but because it contains things Feminism deliberately ignored, it has room to grow, just like Feminism had room to grow due to what Traditionalism ignored.
I also believe it’s a symptom of a looming Male Gender Meltdown that Feminism thinks it wants but is too self-absorbed to carry out. Like, the Alt Right should not be so full of self-identified “traps”, Bronies were scorched but aren’t compatible with the Feminist/Traditionalist model either, and so on. These are symptoms, I think, of a situation which has not yet exploded, but the point of criticality is slowly being reached and it’s going to look very strange and I don’t think the cishet neurotypical women are going to like it.
And? That critical point may arrive just as affordable tissue engineering does.
criminal minds episode about PUAs in the background lel
they are discussing incels this is great
Yeah this is kind of a boring episode because it’s basically a cartoonish version of Elliot Rodger and “doesn’t the manosphere suck guys am i rite”
The manosphere absolutely does suck, but Rodger is more interesting than this guy and his problems aren’t on the level of “the internet told me to hate women so I do”
They’ve done this before. I wrote a GUI in Visual Basic to prove it. More seriously a more naunced take would be less Feminist-mainstream. The Manosphere, for all its flaws, is hated because it’s a rival for the dominant gender narrative that is gaining ground. Shakily, it’s true, but almost inevitably since Feminism is missing entire chunks of reality.
Bad Ending: Chelsea Clinton 2020, Misogyny and Berniebros Prevented Hillary From Going to Michigan
True Ending: Emanuel/Bloomberg 2020, We didn’t learn shit my dude
Golden Ending: Jeb!
@ranma-official: “should’ve pokemon gone to Michigan” is better imo
I just like the combination of noticing they’d be foolish enough to do something like running Chelsea, with the distant dream, the far timeline, beyond 1% divergence, where Jeb! manages to become the President.
So Gavin McInnes and Kyle Chapman are putting together an American Freikorps right now and lefties still think that “punch a nazi” and endorsing antifa/black bloc is a viable tactic
hold on to your butts lads
Prediction: This will increase, rather than decrease, Antifa activity, because Antifa are that clueless.
Believing that the Native Americans have some kind of everlasting ownership of America means you believe in racial nationalism.
weirdly enough this is one of the reasons why I stopped believing in racial nationalism
This logic was part of my reason for posting that Ethnonationalism can’t demobilize Ethnonationalism.
Though I guess this is a counter-example.
Bad Ending: Chelsea Clinton 2020, Misogyny and Berniebros Prevented Hillary From Going to Michigan
True Ending: Emanuel/Bloomberg 2020, We didn’t learn shit my dude
Golden Ending: Jeb!