In addition to the “at-will employment“ angle here, also noticing people who get offended at words like “neckbeard“ seemingly unable to grasp the general concept of prejudicial language.
Turns out hypocrisy is not very convincing to the outgroup.
More you might like
They can’t undo Toxic Masculinity, because they don’t understand Masculinity, and they don’t want to.
…because that would mean understanding things about themselves that they don’t want to understand, either.
“but how will I ever be able to get laid if modern culture frowns upon me getting coworkers drunk and making out with them against their mumbled protestations?? it’s not like my wife is gonna sleep with me lol”
I have not actually worked out how modern culture proposes people are meant to get laid.
I mean, people obviously seem to be doing it, but there appears to be no acceptable strategy.
You ignore the recommendations, and prove how manly you are by taking on the risk anyway, getting shut down viciously if you’re too low-status.
The problem is that any permissible channel will be FLOODED due to the mismatch between the demand for sex from women and demand for sex from men, at least at the noisiest age pools.
Secondly, straight women (generally, on average) do not want to initiate beyond the barest hints, ones that are plausibly deniable if she turns out not to be wanted by that particular guy, leaving her sense of being desirable intact.
What is going to change this is early Transhumanism, as it’s going to alter the sex ratio and potentially result in an increase in bisexuality.
I mean, in practice I used a dating website, which implicitly includes the idea that everyone there for dating is there for dating, and specifies their orientation, so if you don’t have “short/long-term dating” and so on your profile, no fuck for you,
but I don’t necessarily match the patterns of other people, so this may not be actionable advice.
Anyhow, to add on to this, revealing you find someone hot when you’re attempting to extract resources or in a high-stakes …relationship negotiation? …hurts your bargaining position.
At least, you can still get away with pretending that you have to be won over (and showered in all the resources that “winning over”) requires, so long as there are more incoming proposals than outgoing ones, such that the norm is they have to approach you if they find you hot.
As the sex ratio changes, this becomes less and less feasible.
Since I expect a decent-sized chunk of people (3-5%) to “exit” from being male (as we know it) once the technology improves, that throws the bargaining out of whack, as does bisexuality, which means you’re competing with more people for a higher virtual gender ratio… or something. Naturally, once being a sex is more voluntary, what being that sex means changes as well.
“Of course,” said the moderate, as the ethnic violence increased in the country and multi-generational child sex trafficking rings set up in the cities, “some may die, but isn’t our vision of a tolerant and diverse society worth it?”
: /
I know, this is very deeply uncharitable of me. Something about this latest attack has me on edge. I think it’s that I see a path from here to ethnic tension criticality in England, which, with the previous attacks being a cycle of terrorism vs military campaigns, I didn’t.
http://sharkodactyl.tumblr.com/post/165166952339
totally, obnoxiously, horribly uncharitable:
can i want to fuck the monster girls tho
because i’m like them and they’re like me and we both need someone
also like
“every kind of woman is sexualized”
no, they really aren’t. and the insistence that they are is very typical of a certain kind of abled feminism. the kind that insists that all women are drowning in catcalls when some women would give their left tit to be considered someone’s, anyone’s, lust object.
Liberal pundits are over-focused on proving that Trump is a dishonest idiot, and under-focused on why being a a dishonest idiot *matters*.
Pundits are usually trash. Focusing on the meta would out them as dishonest idiots for their trashy ideological cheerleading.
I hope the corrupt officials of the Earth Sphere Federation throw every Globalist in jail for meaningless political crimes. Because that’s where this ends. But they’ll throw me in instead. If there is one world government, there can be no place for me.
An Earth Federation will not allow cultural enclaves that might challenge its power, that exclude people it politically favors. It won’t allow that kind of gated community, much less a full-blown city-state. And there will be nowhere to go except Space.
There’s no logical proof that they can declaw all religions equally, or that the distribution of violence is the same at the tails of all otherwise-declawed religions, though.
Religions are declawed in a secular society naturally as long as no deliberate action (that ensues resistance) is taken. Christianity is very heavily fragmented and society in general has done a really good job declawing it. We are at a “you can’t even prove if God exists or not” level right now. That’s an absurd step down from the absolute majority of humanity’s history
What if your religion expressly forbids secular government/society?
Gets declawed and settles down. Most religions are against any government ever overriding religious laws.
How do you prevent reversion to non-secular society when you constantly import (and don’t police) extremely conservative people that have been cousin-marrying since classical antiquity? Do you know about clannishness vs. W.E.I.R.D.ness?
The allure of sexy secular people, particularly young women, is an extremely well established method of getting the second generation immigrants to defect from their culture.
Well, the Gods of the Copybook Headings with monkhood and marriage return, I guess.
I doubt that’s a long term solution. Eventually the sex and apostasy gets boring and then memory and hopes of marriage call one back, maybe to a better place than one was in at first. It happened to me.
#plz no declaw
You’re Christian. Your religion’s central idea of martyrdom, as popularly understood, and brutally oversimplified, involves the government nailing some guy to a stick.
And in this sense, “declawed” refers primarily to religiously-motivated violence, though I suppose it also refers to virality, which is also a (longer-term) risk factor.
So as you might gather, it isn’t Christianity with its “render unto Caesar” and liberal democratic governments that I’m worried about. Nor Buddhism, nor Hinduism…
Anyhow, I think some of the rampant sex culture will decline on its own even without religion, just from people noticing what they previously weren’t socially allowed to notice - most people do seem to emotionally bond from sex, so for most people it really isn’t just some fun casual activity to do with randoms, and also long-term accomplishment tends to build a higher baseline level of happiness than momentary hedonism.
This is a darkly comical level of ineptness here.
Alright everyone, it’s all better now. Any DNC interns that were thinking of throwing frag grenades into strategist’s offices should put them back.
Honestly, I don’t know if I’m going to even bother voting in the next election. I mean probably, civic duty and all that, rah rah USA, but I’ve seen nothing to convince me that the DNC isn’t a popularity-devoured ideology-huffing institution that will throw me under the bus the first chance it gets.
What if Earth is already the property of some galactic empire that hasn’t gotten around to settling us yet because they just purchased us off of another galactic empire a few decades ago?
What if the leaders of said empire tells its citizen to colonize Earth, and they start taking over our cities and land. They find it justifiable because we don’t use the elements in Earth’s core like they do so we don’t really own the planet.
We’re pushed to Mars, where only 1% of humanity lives in relative peace but a lot of hunger and a few international struggles, which the aliens feed into. They eventually settle Mars too, pushing us to the moons of Jupiter, then Saturn.
Eventually the empire becomes a bit nicer, and builds us a bunch of reservations throughout the solar system, though only a few of them are on Earth. Today we’re a minority in our own Solar System, mostly running Casinos on Mars or giving tours of the ruins of our once great cities. The aliens stopped calling us Meatbags though. Now they use the more respectable Native-Earthling term, though they’ll rarely acknowledge whatever nationality your ancestors had before they came.
The message of this gets over the head of a lot of people and it’s making me kinda sad.
implying we wouldn’t nuke the aliens or, if we were gonna lose, just plain nuke earth out of pure spite
no see you can’t think of it realistically you gotta take in the Extremely Woke Message that is Super Deep and Really Makes You Think
Maybe we can strike some sort of bargain where they agree to judge Islam by the same criteria.
Anonymous asked:
You've made repeated reference to the effects of cousin marriage wrt Muslim immigrants. Could you elaborate on that?
mitigatedchaos answered:
There are a few things to understand, here.
Islam does not require cousin marriage, but it doesn’t prohibit it, either, and as far as I’m aware, the practice predates the religion.
Thresholds matter for social behavior. Something that is okay in small amounts may not be okay in larger amounts.
Here is a map of 2nd-degree-or-closer cousin marriages from Wikipedia.
Notice what a deep blue Pakistan is. Also notice that in most Western countries, the level is fairly low.
Now let’s hop over to the Biological Aspects section of the Wikipedia page.
In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0 percentage points over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.
Well now, that doesn’t sound so dangerous - wait, what’s this following paragraph?
Repeated consanguineous marriages within a group are more problematic. After repeated generations of cousin marriage the actual genetic relationship between two people is closer than the most immediate relationship would suggest. In Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations and the current rate may exceed 50%, one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among nonconsanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of prereproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.
Oh dear.
A BBC report discussed Pakistanis in Britain, 55% of whom marry a first cousin.
Oh no. No no no.
Given the high rate of such marriages, many children come from repeat generations of first-cousin marriages. The report states that these children are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. The BBC also states that Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce “just under a third” of all British children with genetic illnesses. Published studies show that mean perinatal mortality in the Pakistani community of 15.7 per thousand significantly exceeds that in the indigenous population and all other ethnic groups in Britain. Congenital anomalies account for 41 percent of all British Pakistani infant deaths.
Well, fuck. This isn’t good.
The increased mortality and birth defects observed among British Pakistanis may, however, have another source besides current consanguinity.
Oh, you mean it might be some kind of outside oppression? I bet Whi-
Population subdivision results from decreased gene flow among different groups in a population. Because members of Pakistani biradari have married only inside these groups for generations, offspring have higher average homozygosity even for couples with no known genetic relationship.
Oh. Nope, having kids with people who are too genetically similar to each other.
Now remember, we’re talking about information from Wikipedia and the BBC, not Evil Hatefacts from an Evil Hatesite.
So that’s the genetic aspect. So why do they do it?
To keep wealth within the family and stick close to the father’s genetic line.
It isn’t some huge, secret magical diverse cultural benefit that the Middle East has and we don’t. It’s just clannishness. (In fact, I suspect the clannishness is even responsible for some of the issues in their armies.)
Now, the Alt Right seems to think that as a result of this and other issues, all Muslim immigrants must be kicked out of the UK.
That is not necessary. Also it would probably get a lot of people hurt or killed, which is bad. So let’s not do that.
For the Liberals, we should keep in mind that cousin marriage likely promotes clannishness and amoral familism (”my family, right or wrong”), due to increased genetic similarity and insulation from the outer world. In fact, that’s pretty much the purpose of the practice.
Remember that social atomization that was supposed to melt away the religions and make everyone into happy Liberals? That isn’t going to happen if they all marry their cousins, which enables and incentivizes close, repressive, tight control of women, and insular culture.
If we want Islam to chill out and liberalize and soften, like Christianity, and we want the Muslim immigrants to become happy Liberals, then we must ban cousin marriage.
No excuses because “it’s their culture,” or “you’re just a repressive [ethnic majority].” That isn’t helping them.
That’s enabling them. Cousin marriage is bad. It’s self-destructive behavior. It’s other-destructive behavior for the kids, too.
Human beings are resilient. It won’t take that long to start removing the most negative effects, if we start now.
You went straight from “this is a problem” to “we must make this illegal” without any consideration of non-violent solutions.
Considering the current level of ongoing cousin marriage, the current “compromise” clearly is not enough. It is better to have a new “compromise” which is substantially more opposed to cousin marriage than the current one.
So tell me, how do you stop the Progressive Left from decrying the new Reproductive Genetic Risk Assessment Tax as Evil Racism? And how do you prevent it from expanding to other categories?
“Don’t marry your cousin, the government will no longer issue any new marriage licenses for it after [DATE]” is a pretty clear line that draws on the pre-existing taboo in the West against incest and is therefore unlikely to dramatically expand, or cost much to administer.