1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
slatestarscratchpad

Anonymous asked:

Is polyamory the future of relationships or something that will always be limited to a small percent of population? How many people become poly due to their sincere interest in loving more than one person, and how many to play games or avoid the social stigma related to admitting to open/promiscuous relationships? The power dynamics are more complicated, but do you feel that they're on average more fair than in monogamy? Which groups could by disadvantaged in polyamorous relationships?

slatestarscratchpad answered:

I think it’s probably the future of relationships, just because most non-religious people can’t produce a coherent case for monogamy except “think of the children”, and most people will very reasonably say “well, I’m not planning on having children for a while so I’ll be poly for now”. It also seems like nonstandard relationships getting more accepted is a trend (gays, interracial marriage, etc) so I guess I should bet on the trend continuing. I’m not sure there’s a real dichotomy between “genuinely in love with many people” and “wants to be promiscuous”. For example, I became poly because my girlfriend at the time was poly and it would have been weird to have a mono person in a relationship with a poly person. Then I continued because why not.

mitigatedchaos

It isn’t entirely about logic, it’s about how they feel. I read a while back that something like 30% of one-night stands end in relationships. Many people find casual sex unsatisfying. While poly is not identical, it wouldn’t be surprising if it really just isn’t a fit for most of the population without modifications of some kind.

Not to mention the likelihood of devolving to polygyny with all the bad consequences that entails once it gets normalized for the normies.

gender politics
argumate
sonatagreen

There’s lots of stories about women succeeding at traditionally male things (e.g. Mulan, Legally Blonde) but almost none about men succeeding at traditionally female things. When a woman does male things, it’s “she’s a woman but she’s awesome enough to live up to male standards”, but when a man does female things, it’s treated as a joke at his expense.

We need more stories about “he’s a man but he’s awesome enough to live up to female standards”.

zerofarad

I imagine you don’t count, like, Mrs. Doubtfire?

sonatagreen

While I can see how Mrs. Doubtfire is sort of about a man learning to succeed at femininity, I find it deeply unsatisfying for two reasons. First, Daniel Hillard (Robin Williams’s character) only attempts to learn feminine skills in order to pass as a woman. This reinforces the idea that femininity is a female thing. Second, at the end of the movie, I feel that he’s presenting as a more-well-rounded masculine, rather than simply feminine. The message seems to be “it’s okay to cook and clean and spend time with your kids, because it doesn’t compromise your masculinity”. I want a message of “it’s okay to not be masculine”. I’m vaguely reminded of countersignaling; I get the feeling that Daniel Hillard is allowed to have feminine traits because he manages to not let them overshadow his masculinity.

By contrast, consider Kanahe Tomohisa, from Puella Magi Madoka Magica. He’s a stay-at-home husband who wears an apron and takes care of the housework, his build is slim and his demeanor submissive, and this is (at least in the episodes I’ve seen so far) not remarked upon at all or treated as a source of either drama or humor. It’s treated as perfectly normal, natural, ordinary, healthy, unremarkable that he should tend the home and the children while his wife earns the family income as a career businesswoman. The show isn’t really about him, he’s only a supporting character; but he’s the sort of character that would be a natural consequence of the shows I want to see.

hybridzizi

I feel like the fact that Elle didn’t compromise her femininity was a big part of Legally Blonde, though. Do the two movies do this differently or am I just completely misunderstanding what you’re saying? (I haven’t actually seen Mrs. Doubtfire. I’m just going off what you say)

sonatagreen

I’ve actually only seen a couple of scenes from Legally Blonde, but I got the impression that, while she’s femme in a shoes-and-lipstick kind of way, she’s also characterized as having qualities that are necessary to success specifically in classically male endeavors: proactive, academically gifted, a take-no-shit attitude, etc. She’s undeniably girly, but I don’t think she could be characterized as soft and vulnerable. What I know of Legally Blonde gives me a “women can be strong too” vibe, as opposed to the “it’s okay not to be strong” that I’m looking for.

argumate

popular culture cannot bear the sight of a weak man.

mitigatedchaos

Can the median neurotypical cishet woman?

I think that’s a lot of where this really comes from.  That kind of man isn’t really seen as desirable, and that isn’t going to change soon outside of atypical women, which in some ways is fine because we can’t demand they change their preferences, but on the other hand there are a lot of side effects and it isn’t just evil masculinity that’s the cause of them.

Source: sonatagreen gender politics :(
rendakuenthusiast
argumate

Just make all speech laws global!

Either you can say anything that is allowed in at least one jurisdiction, ie. there are no restrictions at all, or you can’t say anything that is banned in at least one jurisdiction, ie. you can’t say anything whatsoever.

Come and see the contradictions inherent in the system!

rendakuenthusiast

Seriously though I’m glad the internet was largely invented by Anglosphere people raised in a cultural tradition of free speech, and particularly Americans, who have a particularly strong cultural tradition of free speech even by the standards of the Anglosphere.

Source: argumate politics speech
argumate
argumate

I look forward to the day that we use vines instead of emojis

it’s the logical progression

argumate

well, shit.

mitigatedchaos

In the future, software on our phones will automatically analyze our most recent selfie and convert it to scalable vector graphic renderings of our faces, then adjust them to fit the standardized unicode facial character morphs using specialized neural networks.

Except for me.  There will only be one photo on my phone, incorrectly meta-tagged as a selfie.

JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER

SHINZO ABE!

Source: apimeleki shtpost mitigated future
argumate

Anonymous asked:

What if pewdiepie loses his livelihood?

argumate answered:

Luckily he has accumulated sufficient capital that he has no further need to work to maintain a higher standard of living than most of the people on this planet.

Failing that I guess he can get a new livelihood.

mitigatedchaos

Like any other financial instrument, after his net value becomes negative, he will be declared a loss and his assets will be sold to Russian businessmen to recover capital for creditors.

shtpost objectification? metaphorically
brazenautomaton

Anonymous asked:

In a distant second behind "culture war and everything to do with culture war", the worst thing ever to have happened to fandom might well be Who Would Win threads. As an intellectual exercise by people familiar with both characters, they're fine, but when they become a pissing match between fandoms, revealing that all present haven't matured past the childhood habit of using fictional characters as tokens in a game of Calvinball, it makes me want to pray for faster nuclear armageddon.

brazenautomaton answered:

yeah, they’re pretty crummy, especially when they verge into territory of “praising stories and rewarding authors for being bad at depicting power and not thinking about the actual ramifications of things in their story” – which they often do, any time science fiction or Goku is involved

mitigatedchaos

More or less.  Fictional power level is more or less arbitrary, and anyone can write fiction, ergo anyone can create The Goku +1 of Infinite Destiny.

fiction writing