@its-okae-carly-rae
mitigatedchaos, resident queer separatist.
You say this as a shitpost, but if we project my views into the past while keeping them semi-coherent, I would have actually suggested making a queer or gay jurisdiction as a test of just how dangerous it really is.
@mitigatedchaos how about this sci-fi take on gendpol:
“Men are indeed worse than women in various ways, more antisocial, violent etc…
And we have egg-combining technology so we can make a Lesbian Utopia…
HOWEVER, we should still keep the population at approximately 50:50… For the long-term psychological benefits of romantic interaction, given most women are straight.”
You say this, but I already once did a fake nation writeup where they created a single-sex and it turned out terrible - not because they weren’t gay enough, but rather, because they embraced the worst aspects of both masculinity and femininity simultaneously. (And also, they would have been less bad off if they had just a few teaspoons of Feminism, but that wasn’t going to happen, for Reasons.)
“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.
lol i bet this is a exhilarating read
Honestly, these sorts tend to overestimate the degree to which marketers are just being desperate.
And that’s what happens when you constantly politicise and over-analyse trans characters, you make a political minefield around the topic that ultimately makes it safer for creators to exclude trans characters than risk implementing them in a way that results in unpredictable controversy and death threats.
Same goes for all of the types of characters who lack “representation”. Stop politicising their existence and more creative types will be comfortable including them.
“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.
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.
Anonymous asked:
I was really expecting to be accused of misogyny, actually. I’m trying to calculate how many levels of misdirection this ask is on.
Maybe it’s about this post?
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.
In which the “they” is actually Mainstream Feminists.
Patterns of male behavior are in part driven by what straight women like/don’t like, or more accurately who they treat as hot/not hot, who they date/don’t date, etc.
Undoing what the Mainstream Feminists call “toxic masculinity” would mean that straight women, on average, would have to change, which would mean they’d have to first understand how cishet female preferences shape the very male power/dominance/status hierarchies they ostensibly oppose.
However, Feminism does poorly at attributing agency and power to women (beyond some of the “rah rah, girl power” stuff), as it’s more politically useful to present as the unpowered underdog.
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.
that whole radical vulnerability thing was just performative softness it wasnt actual vulnerability because it would be a lot darker otherwise lol
Mike Cernovich acquired a copy of that “Shitty Men in Media” list (he was offering $10,000) and is using it to run hit pieces
says he’s going to give the accused a chance to reply, I suspect that’s an excuse to sequence them strung out for maximum news impact, in priority as culture war enemies
What a moron.
These people are going to get away with it, because the accusations will forever be associated with the alt-right. If he’d waited a week or two, someone else would have taken the bait, published, and the media would have eaten it up.
But now the whole issue has been coded “of interest to racists” and everyone else will be careful not to touch it. The people involved will defend with “You’re accusing me of sexual harassment? Aha, I see you’re a fan of Mike Cernovich” and it’ll never go anywhere.
here you are assuming Cernovich intends to bring abusers to justice in an effort to help women
which
i mean
Nah, the analysis still applies if he wants to take down Biddle et al. for being sociopolitical enemies. Where it falls apart, of course, is if he really just wants to gather money and love from guess existing base for “boldly standing up to the hypocritical liberal media establishment,” etc. In that case, he’s actually better if the left drops it as a result of his support, because it gives him more “lone voice crying the wilderness” cred.
Beyond just him, does it not empower the hard right in general if this wagon circling happens?
One of the things that’s been really empowering for the hard right (in my opinion) are conditions in Europe, including sex crimes. Because of just who was committing those crimes, they were able to gain a temporary monopoly on “justice” as a platform for that particular issue.
Do people realize how bad that is for Liberals?
They’re building a narrative that the Left and the Liberals are thick with pedophiles, molesters, and sex traffickers, and that when they aren’t committing those crimes themselves, the Left and Liberals are willing to overlook them depending on ethnicity.
Circling the wagons isn’t what the Liberals should do. The way to prevent the hard right from gaining ground in Rotherham was to be better than they were, by actually enforcing the laws, like they are supposed to and, ostensibly, which is in line with their principles.
We’ve seen that at least some of the hard right are willing to fabricate a narrative if they have to, but a non-fabricated narrative has a lot more solidity to it.
So maybe they circle the wagons, and this outsider can’t actually take these guys down. But what if the point isn’t to take them down? What if the point is recruitment? Long-term recruitment, shifting the margins of power, which, when you only need a majority, matters.
Their faction is relatively small right now, but it has room to grow in proportion to how badly their rivals fuck up and/or are disconnected from reality.
