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.
i still think it’s darkly hilarious that so many men heard women say ‘i want a man that’s sensitive’ and heard it as ‘i, a man, should be extremely sensitive about my feelings and desires, that is what women want, they want to be kept constantly walking on eggshells around my hairtrigger emotional state,’ instead of ‘ohhh women want partners who are sensitive to THEIR feelings and desires’.
like. this isn’t that hard. practice emotional reciprocity with women. listen to and sympathize with them. it will make your life way better than just demanding that people constantly cater to you and then not giving anyone anything back.
Like, “pay attention to my girlfriend’s emotions, be sensitive to my girlfriend’s emotions, but otherwise be a stone-faced, indestructible rock golem of strength” is the expectation.
And when straight women who are upset about things like in your post say they want a “sensitive guy,” it’s phrased in ways like “I want a guy who knows it’s okay to cry.”
Like, that pretty clearly means in touch with his own emotions.
Straight guys expect that if they are emotional in ways other than validating the emotions of their girlfriends, women will break up with them.
You tagged this “bangs pots and pans in a masculine manner” so I’m going to assume you’re male. You should really know better than this, if you’re not just doing rah rah performative wokeness.
Walking on eggshells is never fun, but I always get the sense from these conversations that it’s always “how dare women have to walk on eggshells? What, lots of straight men already had to walk on eggshells? Who cares about them??”
And in turn, I can’t see it anything other than yet another gender war munition that men should just ignore.
Anonymous asked:
He’ll really need that blood transfusion then, eh?
Too bad that blood might’ve gone to someone else who wasn’t him, resulting in a net loss of resources. But how could an Anarchist shooting people be responsible for such a thing?
I’ll be honest, I’ve seen at least one line of posts before in which someone argued that political operatives assassinating people aren’t in any way morally liable for any resulting civil war.
There are arguments for going after billionaires, but the one provided wasn’t a very good one.
“They could warp the political system to their own ends using ‘campaign contributions’” is a far better one.
Also, regarding the phrase “undocumented immigrants,”
Since the deliberate implication is that there is no issue, these people are merely missing some paperwork, like an accident where an ID was not delivered through the mail,
This is very much a “nations are only lines on a map” style of thinking.
So let’s give a “nations are only lines on a map” style of answer.
If national citizenship is so meaningless that not having it is merely equivalent to not having a few papers, that it’s irrelevant what historical experience one has, or education, or national loyalty, because nations are social constructs and don’t really exist, right?
Then one agrees that the “United States of America” cannot hold any moral liability, on account of being a few lines on a map, or a few pieces of paper.
So every war, every coup, every conquest, every civil rights violation, and so on, the “United States of America” is not responsible for and owes, in itself, absolutely nothing.
If you do think the United States of America as a geopolitical entity is more than just a few lines on a map or a few pieces of paper, then the term you can use if you feel “illegal immigrant” is too dehumanizing, because “no person is illegal” (even though by that same logic there can be no such word as “trespasser”),
is “unauthorized migrants”.
Apparently that’s the “in” neutral word now.
I find it remarkable just how quickly the Democratic Party re-learned that a distinction exists when Trump got into motion.
Anonymous asked:
argumate answered:
In a hypothetical society where everyone is equally wealthy, no one would be forced to leave their home due to rising rents.
In a hypothetical society where everyone is equally wealthy except for a small number of billionaires, then at most a small number of people etc.
In our current society with a great disparity of wealth levels, etc.
It isn’t a 100% positional good.
You can actually build more housing units, if you’re allowed to.
Not uncoincidentally, this would also lower housing costs and the risk of gentrification in the first place, or at least lower damage associated with it.
Or we could just continue not building new housing units and simultaneously say white people leaving an area bad and also that white people moving into an area is bad. Surely this will help the poor, somehow.
“You liberals and your safe spaces/trigger warnings/elitism/anti-fascist protests are the reason we have the alt-right” isn’t wrong just because it’s cruel and victim-blaming. It’s wrong because…well, follow that to its logical conclusion.
Suppose you’re right. Suppose we live in a world where a group of overeager progressive students demanding trigger warnings can actually cause large groups of Nazis to march with assault rifles and elect a leader who promises to bankrupt, deport, imprison, assault and/or kill millions of people. Suppose we live in a world where one punch thrown by an Antifa protester naturally and rightly leads to mass curtailment of civil rights for everyone.
Suppose we live in a world where those on the side of justice have to be perfect, have to moderate our language and keep our voices down, have to assemble politely and calmly, or else we can and should expect violent repression.
What kind of world is that?
If we live in a world where overeager college kids naturally provoke Nazi aggression, then the Nazis have already come, and the college kids and the Antifas and whoever else you want to blame today are just convenient targets.
“On the side of justice” - Hint, not everyone agrees that your faction is “on the side of justice,” especially when that faction is willing to do things like overlook sex crimes for ideological reasons. (“But right-wingers ignore sex cri-” right, but you’re implicitly claiming that you are better than them. If you aren’t really, why bother with you?)
Look, there can be dustups without it escalating so much. White nationalists were fringe earlier.
But there is support on the Left for demographic replacement, combined with an implicit belief in ethnonationalism for everyone except white people.
Every time some progressive talks about how “we are the guests of the native tribes here in Michigan,” it supports collective ethnic ownership of the land, which is a core component of ethnonationalism.
You cannot have collective ethnic justice and not have white nationalism.
Either you have civic nationalism without white nationalism, or you have individualism without white nationalism, but you cannot have racial consciousness without white people having racial consciousness, too.
And yeah, historically, white nationalism has been bad. So maybe I don’t appreciate people running around specifically making white people aware of their race and how it’s “problematic” all the time making them identify harder with whiteness.
Spencer’s rally wasn’t even that big! They had to truck people in from all across the country! That whole “anti Nazis” rally in Boston or whatever dwarfed the KKK that were said to be planning to arrive by orders of magnitude.
There might be ways to have ethnic consciousness without causing white ethnonationalism, but they are ideologically prohibited to you, and would probably look more like the behaviors of East Asian soft authoritarian low-democracy city-states than anything you’d see in a diversity seminar.
I am here to tell you how to achieve the Happy Liberal Land through the steps you refuse to enact, and to leverage you to enact them by creating and supporting an alternative that you want to destroy.
I feel like you could make a point in a bias/perspective class by ahead of time getting the unfamiliar names down phonetically so that on your first day taking attendance you could make a show by pronouncing their names correctly but mispronouncing all the names like “John Smith”, “Fred Williams” or “Susan McKenzie”.
Just like in a “Hey class there are subtle little shitty things like this that just exist for some people and if I didn’t go out of my way to do this chances are like half of you would never experience it once even though it’s happening like four times a day to everyone else”
“The very presence of foreign immigrants is changing your culture for the worse, Trumpian immigration restrictionism is in your interest”
@rendakuenthusiast Where the fuck are you getting that? White chicks are able to come with names like Zarowski or Tegan or Kanada or whatever.
I’ll tell you where he’s getting it - this kind of exercise implies that the immigrants would would not have to deal with those terrible, horrible incorrect name pronunciations if the immigrants weren’t in the country, and that the students wouldn’t be experiencing this kind of bias exercise designed to tell them that they’re bad people for not knowing more than a miniscule fraction of the hundreds (if not thousands?) of languages on Earth.
People in the nations of origins of the immigrants may well not pronounce their names right, either. It hits them with a unidirectional moral weight, unless handled very carefully.
…and it won’t be handled carefully, because SJ is a culture weapon.
People can sense the political intent on an intuitive level - and it is political.
Broke: Lowering immigration is racist because immigrants are predominantly non-white, and therefore any opposition to immigration necessarily stems from white supremacist racism.
Woke: Not lowering immigration is racist, because bringing in better unskilled or low-skilled employees disproportionately hurts those in our society who are the worst off in terms of health, education, family structure, and contact with the criminal justice system, and that is very much skewed, racially, in our country. Support for mass immigration is just white people showing off how tolerant they are while pushing off the costs on other groups.
