/b/-tard serves Red Pill
Alternate answer: “transition”
I don’t think straight women are going to fare well under Transhumanism, tbh.
sexbots for the men, emotional support bots for the women!
or is it the other way around.
More you might like
Tags Now:
#the iron hand - the State
#the invisible fist - Capitalism
#the red hammer - Communism
#thx xhxhxhx - you know who you are @xhxhxhx
#chronofelony - time travel
#mitigated future - futurism
#art+#oc - hand-made, free-range, gluten-free, organic, locally-sourced PNGs
#shtpost - quality, 100% serious post, always repost this
#politics - elaborate joke post, never repost this
#trump cw - self-filter tag for anti-memeist bigots who are prejudiced against our first Meme-American President due to the orange color of his skin
#discourse preview 2019 - retrocausal posts from the New Mexico Timeline
#nationalism - posts banned under the 2089 Human Dignity Act of the Earth Sphere Federation, filtering these is recommended for normies and anyone who isn’t a NatSep
#augmented reality break - (alternate (reality) break) tag intersection, but with coffee so it’s better and therefore augmented (like me)
Future Tags (Vegas Timeline):
#this week on woke or broke - exciting new youtube show in which contestants try to guess what is social justice orthodoxy and what was cooked up by the producers. failing contestants are fired from their jobs
#miti draws dallas - performance art piece in which thousands of teleoperated drones are released in a swarm over Dallas, Texas, and pictures of frightened and heavily-armed Texans are posted to Tumblr in five minute intervals
#super love love demon battle - SLLDB fandom drama. eventually boils over into discussion of the SLLDB fandom murders
#HobbesWasRight - series of articles laying out the philosophical groundwork for Googlezon Dynamics’ Leviathan Project and its benefits for the security of the state and the populace
#dogs - dog photos and canine cybernetic augmentations. also ferrets, to go with the ferret mistagging fad
#national technocracy - hypothetical point within the N-dimensional ideospace lattice originally theorized by RAND Geospatial Dynamics Working Group in the 1950s, generally summarized as “that thing that comes after prediction markets”, many researchers dispute whether it can actually exist. abandoned by Silicon Valley CEOs in favor of a system based on Facebook likes.
#dogfree - actual dog photos, just dog photos
Future Tags (Montana Timeline):
No tags for this timeline, possibly unstable. Radsuit suggested.
It is but you can’t admit to it, so you make sexbots that perform emotional support and emotional support bots that perform sex. That way everyone can save face.
Anonymous asked:
Okay heres what makes me dead on curious about this indie game about someone who only cares about the feelings of men (boohoo)... How do you make a feminist cyberpunk future? Isn't that kind of like the opposite?
cyberpunkpixeljunk answered:
Nah, just make sure the women in the setting fit the setting. Plus, what do we know about this game? It could be just fine.
Ugh…
Transhumanism destroys gender/sex binaries by enabling mass alteration of bodies, sex, and gender.
Done properly it will be “Post-Feminist” because Transhumanism massively weakens the boundaries around what the term “woman” even means, and fundamentally alters the mechanics of human reproduction. (I mean, just take the idea of artificial wombs by itself and you’ll get big changes.)
Feminism itself is already struggling to adapt to the world it has created with only modern technology levels. The “Feminists” of 2065 (or whatever) will likely be very different from the ones of 2017.
WE USED TO HAVE A GENDER BINARY
This assumes that the gender binary isn’t something many people want (on some level or another). Considering that clothes often up being gendered, it wouldn’t be surprising to me if bodies become even more gendered among a significant portion of the population. We already have this to a certain extent. After all, men don’t get breast implants even though (unless you count transwomen or related things). Even if you could trans people, then number of ciswomen getting breast implants and cismen getting breast reduction out-numbers them (I think, I am not sure where to look for stats about this.)
Even women shaving legs while men generally don’t could be seen as a evidence that give the opportunity to make the gender differences even greater, people will.
Absolutely. Go on Second Life and you’ll see muscle mountains posing as men.
What I’m expecting however, is mass defection from a significant contingent of men, and a smaller counter-part group among women, into something new.
SSC’s latest seems like a classic case of letting gender politics obfuscate power and class issues that cut across gender.
He quotes some PUA:
Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value dudes hording all the pussy.
And then he uses both his intuitive experience and his LW survey data to show that men and women in polyamory date about the same number of people. There’s at least no clear cut numerical advantage to men. My experience also agrees.
But what if we neuter that sentence, and look at it again:
Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value people dudes hording all the dates.
Which is to say, charismatic and confident people of either gender, dating a lot of people, and awkward and introverted people of both genders dating no one, only one person, or being a hanger on in a larger polycule that doesn’t get a lot of attention from the partner regardless.
That sounds… less implausible. It doesn’t exactly match my observed experience, but it’s not super far from it either. I’ve certainly seen in nerdy groups a Queen Bee that is dating half the men, in a way that seems parallel to the alpha-males that PUA’s fear/worship.
It’s not at all clear that this is bad. This seems just as likely to be the result of “some people want more partners, and are more socially outgoing to find them, while some people want less or are less willing to put themselves out there to meet them,” which would be fine. Or it could be this high-value thing. (I detest rat-tumb’s focus on high-status-males as the evil beneficiary of social engineering, which seems both empirically and ontologically unsound, but from a capitalist-critical perspective, “liberalizing trade regimes” often means “the rich people get more stuff and poor people somehow have less.”)
But, I’m also not going to be surprised by the subjective perspective of people low on the social totem pole. Before, they had hope in this pigeon-hole thing, where each person could get at most one partner, so eventually the people as attractive as them would realize their best chance for a life long relationship was with fellow low-class dates like themselves. It was a bad model, but I’m aware people believed in it. Now they worry no one will be left waiting for them, and they’ll be entirely alone forever. So there’s some people who seem to be having a lot of sex (stealing their jouissance) and they aren’t reaping the benefits.
The answers they come up with are usually dumb, but they are at least seeing/feeling a thing.
Bambam honey darling kun, and also @slatestarscratchpad friend,
I love weird nerds but weird nerds aren’t a representative sample for the behavior of typical relationship norms.
A better example for normies applying this would be all the other countries, territories and communities where polygamy is practiced, as well as communities within the US where one man will have 11 kids by 8 different women.
No full poly until Tranhumanism makes it possible to ‘defect’ from both your sex and sexual orientation, pls.
Anonymous asked:
Can you read all your posts under “gender politics” tag and truthfully say that you want to live when the life is like that? I couldn't.
Dearest Anon-kun,
My representation is a bit more dire than how I actually interpret the situation, in part because it’s intended as a counter-balance to mainstream feminism, which strips women of their agency and refuses to critically examine their role in the social dynamics which create these situations.
“Women are powerless” is really quite deeply normalized almost everywhere! It’s very insidious.
Comments regarding even cishet neurotypical women should be regarded as generalizations that do not uniformly apply to the population, and many subgroups don’t necessarily fit them. Additionally, low-status women also exist. In fact, women that don’t fit this mold are more common in my subcultures!
Additionally,
1) I have a reasonable shot at making it to the Transhuman era.
2) I have a close relationship to my ex WRT expressed vulnerability & female companionship, though not sexually.
3) Have you observed the number of self-identified “traps” and other such individuals among the Alt Right? I believe this represents a sign of an impending Male Gender Meltdown, the consequences of which are hard to predict. Overall, I do think progress is being made, as indicated by the appearance of multiple male gender movements.
Also,
All my exes are bisexual (and therefore have no set reason to behave in a certain pattern of attraction), and this blog will continue to not disclose my sex/gender.
Kind Regards,
Miti
P.S. If you are secretly the tumblr user known as BA, this blog hopes for your swift recovery regardless of whether that is low in probability. If you are secretly tumblr user RO, this blog hopes for an increase in your available useful energy.
Feminism is Sexism plus Popularity.
Feminism cannot ever possibly be defeated and it will burn down every single thing that makes living tolerable and salt the earth just for the joy of annihilation.
You honestly think they’re going to stop the cybernetics/tissue industry?
Because what it means to be “a woman,” as a category, is on a countdown timer right now.
Anyhow, we’ll set the rest of that discussion aside for now, since I want to clarify how I differ from some of the others.
I don’t believe in the purely mind-pattern definition of self.
I don’t see uploads, if possible, as being identical people to the originals. You might be able to Ship-of-Theseus something to cross that causal barrier, but then you have to actually Ship-of-Theseus it to get the appropriate causal entangling.
If I get shot, and you re-instance a brain backup into the blank nervous system of some sort of empty clone doll, I don’t wake up - the clone does.
My suspicion has only grown greater on this with the whole quantum stuff.
…not that having a near-identical clone go on without me isn’t at least somewhat comforting as an idea, but then, so is a nice grave compared to naught at all.
Now I’m very much in the Stop Picking On Death camp and we’ve had it out on that subject before, but, as you say, setting that aside: something that people who aspire to immortality tech need to grapple with, I think, is that any technology that pushes the boundaries of human survivability is going to change our concept of what “death” is. This has already happened to a limited extent: concepts of what death is and when it occurs have been pushed back by medical advances, while those same advances have also pushed back our concept of what life is, in cases like brain death. Insofar as radical life-extending/life-expanding technology is possible, our present notions of life, death and identity will have completely broken down long before those technologies are perfected, simply because they’ll be obsolete. In a sense this is comforting and in a sense it’s not, since this also means the end of our present notions of what a person is and what it means to say that a thing exists, because those notions are not designed for the kind of pressures that immortality tech would place upon them. You can already see hints of this in the extreme, unbridgeable disagreements over partial-continuity thought experiments.
It seems to me that insofar as there’s a generalized intuition of death, it’s that death is when something changes irreversibly in such a way that you can no longer recognize it as having the same “identity”. This isn’t just a function of the degree of change, though, it also has something to do with smoothness – when you get into situations where the end result is still clearly a living person rather than a pile of topsoil, people’s intuition about “is this death” seems to be almost entirely based on whether they sense an abrupt discontinuity in something they consider central to identity.
Obviously, you get radically different results depending on how you define change, identity, smoothness, and so on, which is why once you start talking about hypothetical futuretech, concepts of death diverge into unrecognizeability. It’s also why the question of whether you’re dead or not depends on who you ask. It’s a fortuitous coincidence that the normal way of dying where your body stops working and disintegrates and isn’t replaced by anything with a close resemblance happens to satisfy nearly everyone’s death formula. In a real sense I think it’s fair to say that, just like selfhood, death is a social construct, and you need to account for that element of it when envisioning a “world without death”.
@discoursedrome here preparing for the discourse takes of 2507
Anonymous asked:
I bet you hide your gender because you don't know what it is. Merely being a confused possibly trans person is too normie, I'm guessing there was some kind of mindwipe and on the right stimulus you'll trigger as 2x193ffhg or something, at which point the world is sufficiently Woke to handle such a true form.
Gender, on Tumblr, is a Discourse Attack Surface:
Woman? “Shut the fuck up, you sexist bitch.” “Hush, Karen,” and so on.
Man? Obviously you don’t understand the Lived Experiences of Womyn, you’re an oppressor, you’re coming from a place of privilege, et cetera.
Transwoman? You can’t be a true woman because you were socialized male, and therefore oppressor, at birth. (Or various right-wing criticisms.)
Transman? Why are you trying to become the oppressor gender, you delusional wannabe oppressor?
Nonbinary? Make up your mind / stop trying to escape your obligations to WOMEN
And so on.
Not providing it makes it more difficult for [discourse rival] to avoid engaging with the content of a post by writing it off as written by [enemy gender]. They still can, but they have to assume the gender to do so, which is a discourse liability.
But on some level, you’re right - it’s probably no accident that all my long-term exes are bisexual women of some kind or another.
Anyhow, we’ll set the rest of that discussion aside for now, since I want to clarify how I differ from some of the others.
I don’t believe in the purely mind-pattern definition of self.
I don’t see uploads, if possible, as being identical people to the originals. You might be able to Ship-of-Theseus something to cross that causal barrier, but then you have to actually Ship-of-Theseus it to get the appropriate causal entangling.
If I get shot, and you re-instance a brain backup into the blank nervous system of some sort of empty clone doll, I don’t wake up - the clone does.
My suspicion has only grown greater on this with the whole quantum stuff.
…not that having a near-identical clone go on without me isn’t at least somewhat comforting as an idea, but then, so is a nice grave compared to naught at all.
What about sleep?
It’s the same physical hardware, and I think that makes a difference.
Does that apply to your hypothetical digital copies as well, do they have to go through elaborate protocols of continuous operation to transfer from one datacentre to another without dying, or is it just the flesh-to-silicon transition that has this problem?
do they have to go through elaborate protocols of continuous operation to transfer from one datacentre to another without dying,
I would think so, but I am less likely to believe that consciousness is purely classical these days.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.