arcticdementor

[arcticdementor]

[arcticdementor]

"Like, by comparison, it is not uncommon for women to check in with friends before and after dates "Just in case". It's just common knowledge that it's a thing you should do. Maybe mother's tell their daughters, I wouldn't be shocked. But I knew many women who had this sort of buddy system when they were going on dates. Along with dozens of other rules of thumb to protect themselves in case the man was a scumbag or violent. What defenses are men armed with? "Don't stick your dick in crazy" I guess that works, but what is crazy? Well now we're right back to red-pillology as the only definer of women. And generally, after they've slept with a woman, everything that happens after, even the most nightmarish abuse and family terrorism, is viewed as something they brought on themselves. All they do is shut their mouth, get a lawyer, and say goodbye to half their assets and income."

—WhiningCoil

[arcticdementor]

like no one in fandom even fantasy fandoms is interested in like the psychology of living under one of the predominant social organizations in human history which is monarchy. hotd characters are all either proto-communists or gullible suckers whose entire existences have zero meaning whatsoever aside from how the inevitable suffering such tragically deluded beings experience for their self-evidently idiotic belief system can be used from our superior vantage to smugly diagnose how they devoted themselves to something dumb and futile and how advanced we are for being able to pity them for it. just a profound lack of curiosity masquerading as like leftist media critique and it makes me mad as hell.

[arcticdementor]

"Saw a tweet that made the specific argument that men aren't reallycompeting to be more interesting than other men for a woman's attention at any given time (sometimes they are, of course). He's competing to be more interesting than her phone. Which is a difficult lift. She's got a dozen apps on there for various forms of communication, another dozen for feeding video slop, and then probably a half dozen games to fill in the gaps. Up against that much dopamine-hacking technology, what can a given guy sitting in front of her do or say that will actually get her to stop thinking about her messages, or her latest instagram post, or make her want to engage in conversation instead of scroll tiktok."

—faceh

[arcticdementor]

"I remember having a conversation once at a party where I voiced my interest in what it would be like to date someone and intentionally remain celibate until marriage. The other party, a Thoroughly Modern Woman, immediately voiced the objection "But what if they're bad at sex?!" I respond by telling her to think it through. In my hypothetical, the dating is the same as it is now, just no sex. We find each other attractive, we share important experiences, we trust one another, we integrate into each other's family life etc. If we assume all of that exists (which we have to, because, in this hypothetical, we're getting married) ... then how in the hell could the sex be bad? "Here's this person who I find physically attractive, deeply care fore, have spent x months or years with, and have thought about as a long term partner for much of that time .... oh, fuck, she doesn't immediately know how to swivel her hips. Cancel it, cancel the whole damn thing." It's such a laughable thought to genuinely worry that, on a wedding night, one or both partners is confronted with the horror - the absolute horror - that the other party isn't particularly gifted and one of life's most insanely pleasurable activities. But that's what modernism has brought us. "He/she has gotta fuck good" is on the same checklist as "trustworthy" and "reliable""

—100ProofTollBooth

[arcticdementor]

I can't imagine how anyone who believes that feeling certain in your beliefs leads to violence or authoritarianism could have any faith in the liberal ideal. It's tantamount to saying that actually existing pluralism is dangerous unless no one really believes any of the diverse viewpoints each professes

[arcticdementor]

The obvious answer is "no, because, regardless of one's position on 'when life begins,' Western cultures have, for a long time now, counted age — particularly for legal purposes such as alcohol purchase restrictions — from birth." Because date of birth is simply easier to pin down precisely that date of conception — it's much more observable, after all.

Plus, until recent technological developments made (rare) cases like this possible, the difference between "21 years after birth" and "21 years + 9 months after conception" is rather small (being mostly in the other direction from this case, and a couple months at most — again, partially thanks to modern technology), making it mostly pointless to favor the latter over the former, except to make the kind of philosophical point that, in practice, is only ever the sort of thing people demand of their opponents in a rather disingenuous argument.

They’re calling me every slur under the sun over on twitter for this post

[arcticdementor]

the thing about andrea dworkin is that anything good she used to say was taken up and done better by later feminist writers and activists, whereas the material impact of the bad shit she used to say, advocate and actively lobbied for has had such long lasting nasty impact on sex workers worldwide, trans women and the current wave of conservative shutdown of anything deemed Pornographic. she didnt just say things! she actively took measures to try to criminalize anything deemed pornographic and incarcerate sex workers! she lobbied extensively in the united states and canada and even succeeded! her work is being cited by groups like focus on the family and co!

which isnt to say you shouldnt read her critically or something; it's important to read even stuff you disagree with. but whenever people say she's most relevant than ever today, i cant help but think about what the actual long-lasting impact of her work was and i really dont think there's a need to try to redeem her in turn! you cannot separate her writings from the work she did with mckinnon and how they're being cited by right-wing evangelicals trying to remove all mentions of sex and trans people from the internet.

[arcticdementor]

"Alienation" often seen as a fruity social-science romanticist dare I say "wordcel" critique of capitalism but it's the engineers and techies who get hit by it the most, all this shit designed against the user.

[arcticdementor]

Can you imagine being J.D. Vance, and a truck bearing the image of you as a giant blueberry[1] that your own supporters created as a prank drives by?

It must be so surreal.

[1] Technically I don't think it's the blueberry one, but it should be.

[arcticdementor]

what I miss most about Mexico is random shops with inexplicable and very unlicensed mascots of beloved characters from various Japanese media. don’t reply to this with taqueria goku. it runs so much deeper.

[arcticdementor]

"I once had the misfortune of watching a woman at a bar loudly shitting on male hinge profiles, while surrounded by men who kept trying to engage with her socially. This was in the context of after a 5e RPG night at said bar. One guy asked her if she's ever been on a Hinge date and she said "chuh, no, I don't want to get Assaulted" while not looking at him. Then another of the guys around her mentioned being gay and she suddenly put down her phone and started staring at him lovingly."

—Skulldrinker

[arcticdementor]

"Its probably fair to say that the bottom 50% of men, in terms of attractiveness, are functionally invisible to the average woman. Which is to say, they don't actually count those men in their own personal calculation of what "men" are like. If you tell these women that a huge portion of men are actually not able to get matches on tinder, or can't successfully approach women, and thus are unable to find a relationship despite honest best efforts, these women will simply disbelieve you. Availability Heuristic and all that. So from their perspective, the men that they notice and pursue, i.e. the ones that actually 'exist' for them, are doing just fine. In fact they're doing TOO well, its not fair that he can just pump and dump her because she's one of 5 or 6 others he has on tap! I'd say that most of the intersex animosity is because women see the top, call it 20% of men as "men" and the bottom 50% as nonentities that don't enter their thought processes at all. And then there's that awkward 30% of men who are in a superposition of 'man' and 'not man' unless and until a woman decides to pay them attention. If they only compare themselves to the upper 20% of guys, and ignore the bottom 50%, then mentally yeah it feels like SHE is the disadvantaged one in this situation. They can ignore things like the male suicide rate, the fact that most of the crappiest jobs are male-dominated, and that men are generally disfavored by the law because they only see the top 20% of dudes, who ARE in fact doing really well, and assume that's representative. And boom, there's your patriarchy. Meanwhile, the other 80% of men are painfully aware of their own status, and are finding that every woman they attempt to approach is in fact pursuing those top 20% of guys, and, as noted, is un-self-aware of this factor, and disregards the experience of the vast majority of men when judging them. So women are mad at 'men' because the only men they care about are rejecting them in the end, refusing commitment but taking sex. Men are mad at 'women' because when women get mad at those top men, they put ALL men on blast, and that catches a lot of guys in the crossfire who have not done a damn thing to deserve it. They're being treated like villains ON TOP of being rejected by women en masse because those top men are gleefully exploiting their position, and women are incapable of regulating their own marketplace so are getting increasingly distressed and lashing out. And uh, it looks like said men are getting very, very fed up with this. And no, this is NOT explained solely by manosphere influencers. Even men who are successfully dating seem to believe less in gender equality. Because those top 20% of guys probably have come to understand women from the other side."

—faceh

[arcticdementor]

"Indeed. The wars of the sexes, and the resulting fertility collapse, have gotten so bad that people are willing to resort to literally anything to fix them: killing womanizers, paying women to birth orphans, anything at all... ...except the one thing that we know works, and that kept civilization running for the past 5,000 years. De-emancipate women? Never! Better to go extinct."

—erwgv3g34

[arcticdementor]

Weeping at this. Frighteningly similar to how I sound