no gf we die like gamers
Okay but like seriously I expect double digit % mass defection from being male when transhumanism hits.
In other words, the gamers will realize they were the gfs all along.
concept: feminists should encourage straight women to attempt to initiate more relationships with men instead of waiting for men to initiate.
I thought this was the case already, no?
I could be wrong, but at based on my observations there are at least ten thinkpieces recommending men should make fewer approaches for every one suggesting that women should make more.
At least based on a simple monogamous relationship model where both sides desire to find a partner, women are going to have to expect to tolerate a lot more approaches unless they’re willing to make a lot more approaches.
(Note that this model can break down if one gender is more eager to trade up than another or more interested in non-monogamous relationships or whatever).
ranma-official asked:
thathopeyetlives answered:
I don’t know. I don’t think it’s hugely disparate.
I… Can’t really confidently accept that. Like, I agree that just criminalizing abortion in a country accustomed to having it legal, and not doing anything else, would be spectacularly ineffective and destructive.
But we have to actually end it. I’m not willing to lie to myself.
Speaking of being honest: actually ending it would require standardized physical or genetic modifications to humans to change how reproduction works such that pregnancy is purely voluntary and disconnected from sex. I can’t see any other way that doesn’t result in illegal abortions being performed which does not require police state theocracy or even greater violations.
That, of course, leaves out the entire discussion on how “ensoulment” works, and ways in which ensouled matter must necessarily behave differently from unensouled matter if souls aren’t just glorified backup devices.
oh god, I just realised the extent of the parallels between slut and cuck, and what that implies for our future.
reclaiming the slurs.
“I’m a Cuck” t-shirts.
Earnest YouTube videos of guys giving slam poetry expositions on why it’s actually good to be a cuck, and only neanderthals claim otherwise.
CuckWalk.
is this something we can prevent from happening, like some kind of back to the future deal where we change the timeline??
How does that silly NRX saying go, “Cthulu always swims to the left”?
I intend to roll my eyes at it and continue to not be associated with Feminism.
Unpopular opinion: intersectional feminism is responsible for a lot of collateral damage that it is becoming increasingly urgent to address. It presents itself as comprehensive in its revelatory powers re: marginalized experience even though it actually enables silencing and reinforced marginalization of the most marginalized of such experiences by virtue of its very theoretical structure. Its ideals are not practically supported by its theoretical tools due to their own structural flaws.
In brief, upholding positionality as a criterion of discourse and ultimately decentering privileged commentary in attempt to define narrative authority ends up fostering oppressive dogma and suspension of necessary critical inquiry in the very attempts to do the opposite, and in ways that large-scale matter to the lives and plights of the most marginalized. […]
This may be a relatively digestible bit of expansion copied from another thread. For context, someone was musing about how third wave feminism seems to have a severe problem recognizing issues like misogyny and homophobia and generally identifying social conservativism within Muslim communities:Honestly I think this is partially wrought by intersectionality theory itself. It tries to unravel and juxtapose nuanced experiences within marginalized groups, but is absolutely ill equipped to do so because it falls into the trap of crystallizing identities and experiences to the testimony of visible community voices without interrogating those voices to begin with, because its very model undermines interrogation. It hinges on mechanisms like positionality to center the voices and experiences of oppressed people, such that representatives of those people are granted authority and outsiders are considered incapable of accessing the knowledge and experience to challenge that.
Except when those representatives given authority by virtue of their positionality are themselves bound to a conservative institution and dedicated to a cultural zeitgeist that is at odds with the values underlying intersectional theory to begin with, while intersectionality itself put roadblocks against any capacity to question or challenge such positionality and upholds a model of specifically decentering critique from outsiders, you get people who believe they are being the most authentic and supportive they can by refusing to extend models of critique that are not necessarily limited by their position as outsiders by sheer virtue of how they are positioned. So they eat all the BS up and the Linda Sarsours of marginalized communities continue to be upheld as representatives beyond reproach. And that’s third wave feminism ‘done right’.
There’s something perversely lacking in self awareness about the very theoretical models people take as authoritative right now precisely because they attempt radical self awareness.
I think a symptom of is that the moral and epistemic clarity of posts like http://nothingismere.tumblr.com/post/154828689842/ozymandias271-questions-that-will-apparently-be is weirdly uncommon. Like, this is such a bizarre exchange:
Querent - “How can I figure out what I should be doing to fight racism without burdening people of color by constantly asking them what I should do?”
@ozymandias271 - “You have a brain? Presumably you can use it to assess the quality of information yourself? Why are you making people of color do this for you?”
It’s one thing to recommend a debiasing intervention (e.g., ‘people under-weight evidence in the form of self-reports of others’ experiences when those people have lived very different lives; assign more weight to compensate’), and another thing to act as though the debiasing intervention replaces normal weighing-of-the-evidence altogether.
First-hand accounts from the disprivileged are a weight on the scale, not a qualitatively higher form of evidence/argument; obscuring that fact and talking in non-quantitative terms encourages epistemic learned helplessness like in Ozy’s post.
I mean, the exchange makes perfect sense once you take into account that Querent readers are trying first and foremost to ensure that they don’t get yelled at, and that openly admitting to that would get them yelled at. Ozy’s approach is the one that actually works better for everyone in the absence of any risk of yelling.
Throwback to this iconic tweet
🤔🤔🤔🤔
It pretty much boils down to “I never had to think about it until it affected me personally”
Remember, having the right opinions isn’t enough, you need to have them for the right reasons.
Alternate explanation: women who hate men continue hating men even after they have male children, including obviously the male children they have.
Alternate alternate explanation: This actually does happen, she just doesn’t know about it personally. (Truthfully it’s a mix of all three.)
I think you’re overconfident in your interpretation of what the anon meant. Maybe that’s what you would’ve meant in their shoes, but they’re them and you’re you.
I think people can pick up on these things on a subconscious level even if they aren’t fully thinking that way explicitly on a conscious level. I certainly can’t name most logical fallacies even when I can spot them. (I didn’t know what the formal name for what the problem with religious threats about the afterlife was, but I could tell something was wrong with them, for instance.)
Take, for example, the treatment of racial diversity in America. If a 100% black company is okay, but a 100% white company “needs diversity”, then this implies that blacks are worth more than whites. That may not be what (most of) the advocates really mean, but that’s the sum vector of their words and actions as received by a number of people. And people pick up on that as being unwanted/unwelcome.
Or to take a stronger example, if men and women are equally capable of doing good things, but men are uniquely violent and evil, then it logically follows that men are worse than women. …and the ways to escape that tend to look like either MRA or “redpiller” (not the same thing) behavior, which are definitely not welcome within Feminism.
It should come as no surprise that are a lot of people that do not feel wanted/welcome within Feminism and refuse to have the label applied to them, even though many Feminists would want to apply the label to them.
But anyhow, both groups often don’t really go chasing down these chains of reasoning and making them explicit, since people don’t really think that way (and most people are relatively average). But I think they do notice them, and they become feelings that baffle their opponents.
Now, it’s possible that the Anon really does believe America has an ownership claim to those University positions, and that Anon has a partial ownership claim to America, and thus some claim to those positions. But that gets into the philosophy of ownership/property, which is a whole other thing, especially since I view ownership/property as useful rather than true.
Anyway…I don’t know much about the history of academic visa policy in America. So I can’t comment on whether every attempt to tighten it is characterized as racist xenophobia. But this particular attempt pretty clearly is xenophobic and maybe racist too.
Well, I don’t think it was handled well. I would have done TUoC’s “xenophobic plan” version instead if I were Orange Capitalism Man. But there is a reason I didn’t vote for Orange Capitalism Man despite being an unironic Nationalist.
Anonymous asked:
sinesalvatorem answered:
And, like, phoneworkers and people in brothels; both of which might be considered “secure”, but neither of which is really an imitation of anything like courtship.
Sure, there’s intimacy, because this is someone you’re being sexual with - but I think that’s kind of the point. These are people who can’t let their guard down around anyone else because they can’t feel intimate with anyone else.
You: “I am noticing a way in which men are experiencing suffering.”
Anon: “Men don’t experience suffering, they’re, uh, just trying to woo [generic] you .”
I said I’d talk about politics less, but I feel like I do need to get this out of my system.
There’s an idea going around both on my dash, and people I know in person, that the behavior of people on the left is what caused Trump to be elected. Different groups get the blame, whether it is rich white liberals in Silicon Valley, DC, and Hollywood, the campus left, black lives matter, internet SJWs and feminists, mainstream media journalists, late night comedians, or some combination of these, the theory goes that Trump was essentially a white working class middle finger to the condescension, radicalism, and disrespect toward traditional values of members of these various left-wing groups. People who put forward this theory say that to win back Trump voters, the left needs to be kinder, more compassionate, and less radical toward white working class (WWC) culture, values, and way of life. The claim is that if only the left were nicer to WWC people and respected their way of life more, Trump would have never even won a Republican primary, let alone an electoral college majority.
Now, leaving aside whether it would be personally moral and virtuous to be more compassionate and less radical toward the WWC (probably to at least some extent), I want to raise doubts about whether this perspective is actually useful for winning elections and defeating Trumpism.
No doubt many WWC people, and those sympathetic to them, feel condescended to, disrespected, and that their way of life is under attack by the left. There is also no doubt that there have been individuals and groups on the left that have been openly hostile to the WWC way of life, where “white male” is an insult, conservative Christians are publicly degraded and mocked, performative flag-waving nationalism is seen as not just gauche but stupid and hick-ish, and where white rural people are assumed to be personally racist and homophobic.
But, all political movements are going to have their assholes who degrade the other side and openly disrespect them. It’s easy to miss when you largely live in left-wing bubbles online and off, which I imagine is true of most people on my dash, and is certainly true of me, but the right has their own version of this, and it’s popular. There’s a post going around my dash about a condescending line in a Meryl Streep speech, and how this is an example of liberal condescension that created Trump, but I guarantee you that more people listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity on the radio every day than saw that Meryl Streep speech. And Limbaugh and Hannity on an almost daily basis disrespect, mock, and condescend to liberal constituencies, values, and ways of life. And guess what, Republicans still won.
People like Limbaugh and Hannity, not to mention Fox News and Breitbart, make their money by inflaming a sense of grievance and resentment of the left among the disproportionately rural, older, religious, and WWC Republican base. These outlets have far more political reach and power than random SJW blogs, the campus left, black lives matter, actors or tech billionaires giving speeches, or even late night comedians.
In the educated liberal bubbles that I and many people in my online and offline circles reside in, the reverse can seem true. It can seem like left-wing culture is omnipresent and the right is completely stifled by blacks lives matter, SJWs, and late night comedians. But in other circles, which comprise nearly half the country, the reverse is true.
In many ways, the left is already on net more compassionate to the WWC than the right is to left-wing constituencies. There were countless articles in left-wing outlets talking to Trump voters in order to understand and sympathize with Trump voters. I don’t think I’ve ever once seen an article in a right-wing outlet that went to Harlem, San Francisco, or Ann Arbor, trying to compassionately understand the motivations and lifestyle of people on the other side from their point of view.
So the idea that the left must hold itself to an even higher standard on compassion and than the right to win elections seems implausible to me (again, leaving aside whether holding ourselves to a higher standard would be more virtuous and moral).
Even if the left was nicer to the WWC, I don’t see that changing vote patterns, or making the WWC feel any less resentful and under attack. Suppose 90% of the left-wing people who are being blamed for the rise of Trumpism became nicer. The Limbaughs and Hannitys and Breitbarts of the world, and the millions who follow them, wouldn’t take a step back and say “you know, maybe the left doesn’t hate me or my way of life”. No. They would continue to cherry pick the worst examples, as they already do, from a smaller set of mean liberals in order to inflame cultural resentment and grievance among their followers, and they would also continue to see things that I think aren’t mean and are true that the left says, like that black people have a rougher relationship with the police than other groups, as offensive and attacking their dignity and way of life.
I’m not saying there’s no way to convince some of these people over to the left. But, pointing the finger at the meaner (and numerically smaller) strains of the left and thinking that if only for them being condescending and disrespectful we would be in a golden age of liberal dominance in politics doesn’t strike me as true or productive.
So I get your frustration, and a lot of what you say is correct. It’s far too tempting to say “Hey leftists-who-disagree-with-me, YOU’RE the reason our enemy won!” without sufficient proof. That’s just opportunism.
And we should treat the WWC (and all of the WC) in this country with compassion, and we should help their material needs, regardless of whether it wins us elections. Trying to come up with political justifications for basic human decency is a bit creepy.
(Plus, not to mention a Far Right resurgence is occurring across the entire developed world. It seems very petty to blame that on a few annoying American liberals. There are deeper trends here.)
I feel you here.
However, there is some countervailing evidence here.
1. If we’re not being condescending to them, we should listen to what our enemies are saying. And in between accusations of corruption and defending the free market, Republican voters seem really, really upset about Political Correctness. Obsessed with it, and explicitly saying they support idiots like Trump just to defy Political Correctness.
You can dismiss what they say and come up with other reasons they voted the way they did (they just want to be racist, or economic anxiety) but then that is being patronizing because you aren’t really listening anymore. If you listen, Political Correctness is a huge deal to them, and teasing out the source of that sounds like a worthwhile endeavor.
2. A lot of this is just projection from some left-of-center allies about the illiberal tactics used by establishment social justice, such as extreme arrogance, dismissiveness, shallow analysis, using institutional power to punish dissenters, and a bunch of other mindkilling, groupthink tactics. Said allies (or, former allies) really hated those tactics, and so rejoice in blaming them for the defeat of the mainstream SJ candidate.
Projection is not a good source of analysis of course, and so they might be wrong that this really caused Trump’s victory. But said establishment really should pay attention to how many enemies it has, even “on its own side.” Their tactics are really ticking off their friends, causing dissension every step away. SJ can try to ignore this dissent and pain as long as they wield the hammer, but don’t be surprised when their enemies leap at any weakness as a chance to earn some rhetorical points.
Social justice has enraged and alienated conservatives, libertarians, moderates, socialists, communists, and artsy anarchists. At some point it will have no friends left except the business-friendly / socially liberal wing of a city-based party.
3. Something happened between 2012 and 2016. There’s some reason Republicans started really getting into unbridled rudeness and race-baiting. You can’t even wholly blame Trump for finally opening the floodgates, he tried in 2012. What the hell happened to make voters so much more racist, or at least racist-tolerant? It’s not like there are a lot more immigrants around or other normal causes of racial strife (let alone to explain the tolerance of crude sexual behavior.)
And to the unaided eye, one of the real changes of the past 4 years was the political visibility of intolerant liberalism. So it’s at least worth considering “the thing that changed in the last 4 years, is somewhat responsible for the rather different outcome this time around.”
Regarding #1: If a 100% black company is okay, but a 100% white company “isn’t diverse enough”, this implies whites are inherently worth less than PoC. If women have equal beneficial capabilities to men, but men are uniquely violent and oppressive, this implies women are better than men.
I think people can feel this even if they don’t consciously realize it.
Also, as one of those alienated types, those tactics you mention make SJ a liability to me in many ways.
kontextmaschine asked:
argumate answered:
I see what you are doing and I worry it ends with conversion to Catholicism.
