like I’m supposed to respect genuine human connection from someone who couldn’t face me in a fair fight
This is why all men date only wrestlers and MMA fighters, a practice I approve of in my quest to create the ultimate Brazilian Jiu Jitsu martial artist.
The people who complain about things like a female doctor who or female Jedi or whatever almost always swear up and down that they don’t mind the idea of a woman in that role, but then say they have a problem with that particular instance because they think it’s “pandering” or “cheap” or “just for brownie points” or “politically correct”
So when exactly is it not going to be those things? If they say there’s a time and place they’d be fine with it, then when and where? Why does it never seem to come?
Also complaints that ‘pandering’ is somehow an epidemic of caving to pressure from various social justice activist movements are unfounded.
Pandering is 100% a marketing tactic. Rainbow French-fry cups sold during pride month is pandering, and is 100% because it exploits desperate gays. Female roles in films exist because women go to the cinema. Rewriting roles after-the-fact to be women or PoC or whatever is often done not for artistic reasons.
Let’s have more pandering, but never forget it is a marketing tactic. Pandering is not respect, it is not a substitute for human rights, it is not victory.
How do you extricate the pandering from the bad writing, and the discourse around the bad writing from the discourse around the pandering?
What if you’re offended by marketing tactics designed to profit off your good intentions while not in the least supporting them? What if the most marketable media examples of queering and testing boundaries are also the most implausible and ridiculous? E.g. a woman beating up a room full of men is weirdly sexy, but also simply does not happen. Ever. In the world. Go on worldstarhiphop. Find the Amazonian giantess that the microwaveable plastics tell you is surely out there. Prove me wrong.
No MMA ladies vs. gamers tho. There are institutionally supported exceptions to every rule.
Unlike all those millionaire playboys who fight crime without so much as a scratch
Or all those superpowered farmboys from another planet
Or, y’know, all the aliens in time-traveling police boxes
Wow!!! It’s almost like fiction is all about implausible scenarios. Who knew!
Implausible is qualitatively different from physically impossible.
This was addressed in the short film Too Many Cooks.
You can maybe turn the gruff Irish/Italian police chief into a black guy, but if you make him a small Asian woman the plot will have to dramatically change to accommodate the new reality.
This is why I believe more roles should go not just to asian female bodybuilders, but to tall female MMA fighters of all races.
You know how much state effort it took to make Yao Ming?
You know how much effort it takes to make a single Dinka herdsman?
Also, the former wears out after a few seasons. We’re talking about phenotypic bell curves that essentially do not overlap.
ten dollars says she’s going to twist me pointing out that ada lovelace did not actually invent the computer or programming and therefore men have actually contributed to the development of computers in some way as misogyny somehow
Wolfram is a famous douche and even he acknowledges that she made not just significant but seminal (heh) contributions to computer programming. There’s no convincing evidence that Babbage actually wrote her notes about computing the Bernoulli numbers. She was also from a family of wacky geniuses. It’s not unreasonable to call het the mother of computer programming or something like that.
Hobbes, Pascal or Leibniz may also have been the mother of computer programming, if you look at it a certain way, or Babbage or Gauss.
Contributions to computer programming != wrote the first program
The problem here is that all of rat-tumb agrees on the scope of the actual contribution of Ada Lovelace to the history of computing and to the programs to calculate Bernoulli numbers in particular (http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/sketch.html). We are just arguing semantics here.
Outside of rat-tumb, some people don’t know anybody else other than Ada Lovelace and Alan Turing (from that movie with Benedict Cumberbatch). What about Joseph-Marie Jacquard, Vannevar Bush, Emil Leon Post, Alonzo Church, Claude Shannon, John von Neumann? Grace Hopper or Barbara Liskov might be better candidates for “Women who invented modern computing”.
Outside of rat-tumb, what does it even matter if she did or did not predict symbolic theorem-provers over a hundred years early? Does it matter if you don’t know what a compiler is, but have strong feelings about the subject anyway?
Is the Bernoulli numbers program a computer program? Did she write it? Did anything before it count as a computer program?
Those questions settle the debate. They’re just super hard to answer in a concrete way.
Yes. No. Probably.
You didn’t read the wolfram excerpt I linked to if you really think she didn’t write the program.
So Menabrea did not?
Nope. He wrote about the engine, but it was her notes that contained the first program. Read the Wolfram article.
Ok. Menabrea wrote something non-Bernoulli as an example program, but suggested Bernoulli numbers. Ada Lovelace published the first computer program. Ada Lovelace was the first computer programmer, if you set the cutoff right.
The real reason people argue about this is because various Feminists use it to attack nerds in the tech industry.
While the phrase “no homo” is traditionally frowned upon by the LGBT community, I think it’s actually a wonderful way to contextualize affirmations as entirely platonic, and we should let the straights have it in exchange for us using “no hetero” when delivering affirmations to the opposite sex
Something to think about, but I don’t think it’ll catch on.
The people who complain about things like a female doctor who or female Jedi or whatever almost always swear up and down that they don’t mind the idea of a woman in that role, but then say they have a problem with that particular instance because they think it’s “pandering” or “cheap” or “just for brownie points” or “politically correct”
So when exactly is it not going to be those things? If they say there’s a time and place they’d be fine with it, then when and where? Why does it never seem to come?
Remember that post about how a black reverse Indiana Jones would be great because it would “piss off white guys”?
They know it’s just culture war to take over stuff they currently have for its symbolic value.
If it weren’t just culture war, then it would be about the creation of new media, new stories, rather than insisting “nope, this guy looks too much like you, and you oppress people just by existing, so he must be removed.”
There is already a good test case to differentiate.
Look for people who objected to the idea of a black stormtrooper as a main character in the new Star Wars. As a new Star Wars movie, it wasn’t replacing anyone from the previous movies, therefore you can assume more bad faith of the people who were against having Finn there. (Also the movie is actually enjoyable in itself and the acting was fine.)
Also, they know this sort of stuff only goes one way.
Also also, recall that criticism of the new Ghostbusters that flopped was, to a degree, socially prohibited because it was “girl power!”. But it still flopped. Why wouldn’t a lot of people be suspicious?
If we could just get these “incels” off of the internet and out of the cities they could be vastly happier and less degraded
I think “get them off the internet” is doing a lot of work in that sentence…
I do not understand what you mean by that. I mean exactly what I said.
“Out of the cities” ? Do you really think people who spend their time watching anime and playing video games are more likely to find people they like in far less densely populated places?
Or is this just another case of “these people would be so much happier if they just had different preferences”
It would actually be possible for them to shift some of their preferences a bit, most likely, but it would require an enormous amount of work, as hidden in the task of “getting them off the internet” - no easy feat!
And by the time you did that, they’d be less likely to be incels.
If we could just get these “incels” off of the internet and out of the cities they could be vastly happier and less degraded
I think “get them off the internet” is doing a lot of work in that sentence…
I can imagine going the opposite way round: Women are shorter than men (on average). Women earn less than men (on average). Short men earn less than tall men (on average).
Ergo: Discrimination against short men is toxic masculinity/misdirected misogyny.
michaelblume asked:
thathopeyetlives answered:
I sorta agree with that from a strictly practical public policy standpoint. Trying to fight SSM, and then not getting anything out of it when losing? Terribad idea in hindsight. That probably wasted most of the capital that could have been used to make covenant marriage law much more common or to make family law customizable so that the faithful and the obedient could make the law surrounding their own marriages conform to the law of the Lord.
I of course didn’t write that ask, and wasn’t thinking primarily about SSM – I now recognize that I don’t actually know what date interracial marriage stopped being so stigmatized.
But as far as the actual views of what marriage is, or what marriage is for, I don’t see SSM as a “tiny blip” although I do see divorce as being significantly more serious.
Considering how other societies that aren’t Christian also have marriage - and even monogamy - I suppose I don’t really see it the same way as you do.
It is necessary to create and raise the next generation, marriage creates a system of responsibilities, rights, and obligations designed to make this more practical. In the 20th century and onward, it’s also a way for organizing our lives around a dedicated partner who won’t leave us, and for marking out our family.
We are born social creatures. To be alone can be dangerous, in addition to being unhealthy.
Marriage as it currently exists creates friction of entry/exit, which is important WRT incentives and not leaving when things get a little rough. It’s vitally important in many other areas of our society as well, such as immigration.
I guess I’m not explaining myself very well. I’m rather tired.
Basically all the purposes that I as a nationalist and a statist want marriage to serve are also mostly served by gay marriage (or civil unions), but not by polygamy or easily-dissolved LTRs. (And you may have already read me criticizing polygamy.) I can make a Nationalist case for monogamous marriage which is defensible from a secular perspective, even in this era.
But then again, once upon a time on this very website, I encountered a poster arguing that even non-Christian rulers unwittingly serve the will of God.
wow woke
bluepilled: there are 76 genders. male, female, and all the other ones!!
“redpilled”: there are 2 genders. male and female
redpilled: there is only one gender.
there is only one gender. The human gender.
I thought we’d narrowed the gender cardinality down to {0, 2, ∞}, but no.
I’ve thought about this some and here’s my current model:
I’m male and didn’t watch either of these.
The model is never wrong!
