sinesalvatorem:
My pet peeve: Neo-Nazis who try to use “goyim” as an adjective.
It’s “goyishe”! We’re using feminism and multiculturalism to destroy goyishe culture! Get it right, you shliemels.
TBH I don’t think a basic comprehension of Yiddish is very high on the priorities of neo-nazis.
I mean, considering the apparent extent of their capabilities for basic comprehension they would be very rational to ration their usage and spend the scarcity on more pressing concerns than Yiddish grammar.
(Bvt as a ridicvlovs evropean polyglot I am bothered by how they don’t even realize that it’s a germanic strvctvre present in basically all the langvages they consider to be spoken by the right sorts of people. I mean, they speak engl-ish yet don’t realize this? They are being shitty germanics, that’s what they are. I know my germanics way better than they do, and I’m not even germanic. I’m a total mongoloid vntermensch from behind-slavs-land who hasn’t even screwed a germanic ever (now that I think of it I totally need to cvck their race; if I apply racism to a map of variovs attractednesses it prodvces a nice graph of kind-of-everything-bvt-germanics and that’s fvnny). No wonder the germanic white race is dying ovt when its heroes are of svch great scholarship and mvch intellectval formidability!)
2 weeks ago · tagged #racism cw #nazis cw · 30 notes · source: sinesalvatorem · .permalink
lovestwell:
nostalgebraist:
@lovestwell
There are a lot of little details here that we could go back and forth on forever. I don’t really want to continue arguing over these details.
Your account of Dreger’s perspective, although internally coherent, feels like it’s reading a lot into the book I just read that wasn’t actually there. The line you’re drawing is (I take it) between scientists “doing their thing” with potentially harmful results down the line, and scientists using actively unethical methods. But I don’t remember Dreger ever drawing that distinction explicitly. This is not me being coy or “perversely charitable” or something; I just don’t remember that being the thrust of the book I read.
(It is also not something I would naturally read in, because it doesn’t fit the facts as I see them. Michael Bailey is in fact a scientific researcher, but the campaign to ruin his reputation was in response to a popular book he wrote which meant to illustrate a theory he didn’t himself develop – and the theory itself was developed by Ray Blanchard in a clinic [the Clarke Institute, or “Jurassic Clarke”] that has a reputation for clinical horror stories. So what Bailey actually did is sort of analogous to some colleague of Maria New writing a popular book in which they interview some cherry-picked children who received prenatal dex talking about how great the results are. Would the author of that book be “just a scientist doing their thing”?)
But in particular I want to reply to your concluding paragraph, because it seems to get at some core friction here:
(and if you do believe that - if you do think that someone writing an article in support of autogynephilia, for instance, is “causing indirect harm”, and thereby qualifies as “those few cases where nastiness and extremism might be okay”, to quote @socialjusticemunchkin - then your repeated insistence on discussing the object level, the actual truth of autogynephilia and other such theories - remains that much mind-boggling to me).
I don’t understand this, so I apologize if I’m getting it wrong. What I think you are saying is “you and Promethea believe that mere discussions among scientists of whether certain theories are wrong or right can be inherently harmful and deserve public shaming and nastiness, in which case you must be willing to give up the whole endeavor of scientifically adjudicating the truth or falsehood of those theories.”
I certainly don’t believe that. I believe (like Dreger) that activism, and society in general, needs the free discussion of scientific ideas. But I also think that not every statement by someone with a scientific professorship counts as a defense-worthy part of this free discussion. At a certain point – as when someone writes a book for a general audience containing no new scientific content – they are acting simply as citizens, not as participants in the protected sphere of scientific discourse. No idea should be inherently anathema in the academy, but no one spends all their time in the academy.
If a chemistry professor (after work) tells someone (not a colleague) that they should mix bleach and ammonia when they get home to make a super-great cleaning product – “trust me, I’m a chemistry professor” – they are not advancing an unorthodox scientific hypothesis in some way we ought to protect and celebrate.
You’re drawing a distinction between science and everything else that I don’t subscribe to, and which I did not intentionally ascribe to you either (whether Dreger subscribes to it or not I’m not sure). Your write “Activism, and the society in general, needs the free discussion of [scientific] ideas” and “No idea should be inherently anathema [in the academy]”, but from where I stand, both these statements improve when the bracketed parts are removed. I don’t know how to make a principled defense of the bracketed parts but not the whole; any such attempt falls victim to the volatility of the boundary.
Look; my position as far as I can see is very simple; Yudkowsky’s “Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never.” pretty much covers it. Someone who’s making a genuine attempt to understand the world and/or explain their ideas to others is covered. It doesn’t matter if they’re writing a peer-reviewed article or a blog post on a personal blog: they do not deserve to be doxed, fired, subjected to an angry activist mob, etc. Now it so happens that scientists are much more likely to be engaged in trying to understand the world than people in general; and it so happens that “bullets” applied to explicitly scientific discourse have the greater potential to fuck with gaining more and better knowledge. And I think since Dreger is especially worried about that (as am I), she focuses on activists hindering scientists. But it doesn’t mean that “argument gets bullet” is virtuous w.r.t. a blogger or a popular book writer. I don’t know what Dreger thinks on that, but I sure don’t think so.
(of course, this also means that the onus is on me to distinguish between Bailey, whose book is protected by this principle, and New, whose actions aren’t. But to me, the difference between them is clear, as I tried to explain in my previous post)
Thus, to take an example, even though I happen to have a strong aversion to anti-Semites for many reasons, including personal ones, if you were to write a post trying to argue in good faith that Jews run the world, the thought of trying to dox you, get you fired, falsely accuse you of various kinds of misconduct etc. would be extremely repugnant to me. I’m quite content with never having done anything like that, throughout a very long internet life of blogging that included many intense flame wars.
I’m not sure what *your* position is, but based on the above - and I’m sorry if I’m misinterpreting you - there’s a genuine difference; following @socialjusticemunchkin, you believe that “nasty extremism” is in fact justified in cases where someone argues for a position you believe to be “indirectly harmful” in a major way. Is that a correct summary of your view? Do you, in fact, agree with and justify the actions of Andrea James et al against Bailey described in Dreger’s book (given that Bailey was merely writing a popular book with no new science, which removes him from the “protected sphere” in your words)? In case you do, how much farther would you be willing to go, and in case you don’t, what kind of nasty, directly harmful activism *do* you support against people who express “indirectly harmful” ideas?
Okay, so I’ll step in to defend my own words. “Bad argument gets counterargument” works very well when discussing things in a relatively equal position, with adequate restraint on all sides. I don’t believe there is any single idea that should be verboten to express and discuss. Yes, this includes autogynephilia; jewish world domination; HBD; whether islam is inherently connected to terrorism, violence and anti-modernity; whether women are Just Worse than men, etc.
But the difference happens somewhere along the very vague and ill-defined boundary of academia and politics. I don’t think it’s wrong to say that some ideas need to be handled with more caution than others, because the discussion doesn’t happen in a vacuum and carelessly discussing those ideas may have dangerous spill-over effects. It’s one thing to investigate even controversial ideas, and completely another to write shitty books seeking to popularize them with bad evidence. (Just like people should study syntetic biology, but it would be very irresponsible to publicize a simple how-to guide on creating an undefeatable pandemic that would kill everyone, in a cave with just a box of scraps!) (This is actually the main point I’d like to push: would you consider it not okay to ever attack scientists who disseminate their knowledge in a harmful and irresponsible way? Because if you consider it okay to even nastily disincentivize publishing “The Nihilist’s Cookbook: 50 ways of wiping out the human race from your own garage”, then we already know what you are and are just haggling over the price.)
I’d compare the situation with Bailey to someone pushing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion into the popular discourse about antisemitism. Even if some parts of the claims were correct, it’s nonetheless complete politics, not honest truthseeking. (In fact, Bailey himself has defended his book on the basis that it’s politics, not science, and thus not subject to the institutional restraints of science.) And if I were Jewish, I wouldn’t shed a single tear if the writers of the Protocols got the Bailey treatment.
Thus, to take an example, even though I happen to have a strong aversion to anti-Semites for many reasons, including personal ones, if you were to write a post trying to argue in good faith that Jews run the world, the thought of trying to dox you, get you fired, falsely accuse you of various kinds of misconduct etc. would be extremely repugnant to me. I’m quite content with never having done anything like that, throughout a very long internet life of blogging that included many intense flame wars.
And I think there’s a big difference in this. Writing a blog post is one thing, writing a really popular book and being very influential is another.
Throughout the affair, Bailey had acted in a way which reflected the standard exploitative attitudes cis researchers have traditionally had towards trans people (and trans women in particular). Bailey wrote a book which got its popularity mostly from matching people’s biases rather than from being correct, and trans people are in a very bad position to defend ourselves from it. Some of its components were pure dark arts, such as “anyone who claims they aren’t an autogynephile is lying, and their claims can thus be disregarded” which very conveniently poisons the well so that people who want to ignore contrary evidence have a fully general counterargument ready.
I don’t know the exact specifics, but a lot of what the trans activists have done seems to be basically tit-for-tatting Bailey. I won’t claim there haven’t been genuine abusive overreaches but eg. the part where Andrea James juxtaposed pictures of Bailey’s children with sexually explicit captions taken from, or based on, his very own book is nothing worse than what Bailey himself had done. The only difference was that it was targeted personally instead of generally, and I find it ridiculous that it’d be somehow okay to express such attitudes towards groups but not individuals because groups are ultimately simply aggregations of individuals.
(The obvious solution is to be nice to everyone.)
And a big part of it is the relative positions of the participants. If trans women were not so thoroughly marginalized (especially back in the time the book was written), the danger of seeking to popularize such ideas would be much smaller. One of the basic ways marginalization operates is by treating people as members of groups, not as individuals, and thus when the group one is grouped into is attacked, it’s completely rational (in the “evolutionary tribal game theory” sense) to attack back to defend oneself. Even Yudkowsky has written about his frustration with journalists writing hack jobs and getting away with abusing their power like that, and when you add a bunch of biases and sociocultural status to it, shit gets really ugly really fast.
Or as I’ve said: I’d be a lot more tolerant about people expressing ideas if their ideas didn’t hurt me and my people, but since we don’t live in a libertarian utopia, when Bailey acts like a politician he shouldn’t be surprised if he gets treated like a politician. (And while it’s a totally irrelevant ad hominem, I find it ironically appropriate that Dreger is a bioethicist.)
Yes, I would love to have a society of niceness, community and civilization, but I don’t live there and I don’t blame people who reacted to Bailey with nastiness because I know where they are coming from and I know that the best cure for that nastiness is not to shun people who lash out from pain but to take away the pain. I used to be one of those nasty activists, and while I’ve updated my own methods to be more productive and effective and less likely to hurt innocents, I do consider myself a person who has some actual insight to why people act like that and what can actually be done about it. People are clockwork, if you want them to do/not do something you need to take the clockwork into account instead of whining impotently at the uncaring void.
And before you think I’m some kind of a PC spoilsport who doesn’t want to discuss uncomfortable ideas, let me express some of mine below the cut:
Keep reading
2 weeks ago · tagged #this is totally the sj equivalent of the reynolds pamphlet right? #transmisogyny cw #racism cw #meanness cw · 54 notes · source: nostalgebraist · .permalink
shieldfoss:
jeysiec:
shieldfoss:
jeysiec:
shieldfoss:
jeysiec:
shieldfoss:
jeysiec:
shieldfoss:
jeysiec:
argumate:
shieldfoss:
Principled stances on taxation:
- “Taking property is theft!” (Anarcho-Capitalism)
- “Claiming you own property is theft” (Anarcho-Communism)
- “Taking property is theft, but acceptable for the Greater Good” (Various consequentialists)
Unprincipled stances on taxation:
- “You CAN own property but taking it isn’t theft because of a Social Contract that you never agreed to.” (Unprincipled capitalists, e.g. most modern ideologies)
- “Claiming you own property is theft, but if you use the car that Comrade Iosef drives, the police will get you even though it isn’t Comrade Iosef’s car” (Unprincipled communists, i.e: “communists.”)
Surely you can’t define theft without a concept of property, thus you can’t define property in terms of or in opposition to theft.
If you accept a consequentialist position on taxation then the debate is over:
“People would prefer to hang on to things, but there are reasons why we have to take things away from them, for the greater good”.
In practice most of the social contract viewpoint comes back to this anyway, as people wouldn’t defend a social contract if they thought it gave bad outcomes.
I prefer the rational, factual, logical stance on taxation:
Taxation isn’t theft because you’re paying the government for resources or services you voluntarily chose to use by not changing your lifestyle to not use those resources/services. Because there is literally no moral difference between paying the government to provide those resources/services and paying a private company to provide those resources/services. And if you choose to live a lifestyle which uses those resources/services, you’d just be paying a private company to provide them if the government didn’t do so.
So it’s got nothing to do with the Greater Good or a social contract. It’s just business. The business where if you want/need something, you’re expected to pay the person who is providing it to you if they choose to be paid for it, which does not magically change when the person providing it that chooses to be paid has a government title.
Now, people are certainly free to try to argue that nobody should have to pay for things they want/need and/or nobody should be allowed to expect payment for the resources/services they provide, but those ideas would have to apply to literally everyone, not only to people in the public sector.
(Also money is not property anyway, money is a medium of exchange of property, but an exploration of that fact is outside the scope of this particular topic.)
No. No. This is exactly, exactly, the unprincipled stance of the social contract, even if you say that it isn’t.
I already proved it’s not via explaining how reality actually works. Reality doesn’t magically stop being reality just because you don’t like it. *shrug*
John is not chosing to use the service “Get shot by the police,” so any argument that it’s not theft because he chose to use that service and has to pay for it is super skeevy.
So why are you making that argument, then?
You cannot equip a large mass of people with guns, explicitly charge them to hurt you if you don’t do what they say, then hurt you anyway, then claim that it’s a service you have to pay for. What the actual
So why are you making that claim, then?
[1] I already proved it’s not via explaining how reality actually works.
[2] So why are you making that argument, then?
[1] You really really didn’t.
I really, really did.
[2] … so why are you making that argument then?
Post with that argument has your username on it as the author, dude. If you honestly think that I am you, you might want to go see a shrink about that.
1: “Prove” is a word. Words mean things.
Indeed they do. And I proved my point. Still waiting for you to prove yours.
Otherwise, whenever you say nothing but “you really didn’t” I will respond with nothing but “I really did”. Ball’s in your court.
2: That literally never happened, unless you are referring to the part where I was enumerating unprincipled ideas.
So you’re saying this post never happened? Or that it was somehow magically written by me even though it has your name as the author? We got a live one here, folks.
… did you miss the “not” in that post that makes it mean the exact opposite of what you’re trying to engage with?
Oh, no, I got that you think the idea that “equip a large mass of people with guns, explicitly charge them to hurt you if you don’t do what they say, then hurt you anyway
” is a service, is skeevy.
What I’m wondering is why you’re saying that’s a service if you already know it’s skeevy to say that’s a service.
And then you went totally off the rails to ask me why I made a point that you were actually the one making, and now I’m honestly confused. Like, I don’t fucking know why you think “equip a large mass of people with guns, explicitly charge them to hurt you if you don’t do what they say, then hurt you anyway“ is a service. You’re the one who said it, you tell me why you think it’s a service.
I’m wondering why you’re implying it’s a service.
You may have forgotten. It was here:
Taxation isn’t theft because you’re paying the government for resources or services you voluntarily chose to use by not changing your lifestyle to not use those resources/services.
That’s the skeevy bit. The bit where you said taxation isn’t theft because the things taxes pay for, like being shot by the police, are services.
“Segregation enforced by cops funded by taxes is not oppression because you’re paying the government for resources or services you voluntarily chose to use by not changing your lifestyle to not use the ‘whites only’ drinking fountain…”
(via shieldfoss)
1 month ago · tagged #racism cw #the best heuristic for oppressed people since sharp stick time · 133 notes · source: shieldfoss · .permalink
Open Borders
argumate:
(@voximperatoris, @neoliberalism-nightly, @socialjusticemunchkin)
Most people agree that open borders is a desirable end state for humanity, as being able to maintain it is strong evidence of an absence of war and famine and reduced global inequality.
Most people also agree that throwing open the borders overnight would have catastrophic consequences, following which the borders would immediately be closed again.
(The best example of open borders we have in the world today is the EU, and even moderate refugee flows have been sufficient to destabilise this project).
However there are plenty of obvious compromises that could be made, such as increasing immigration quotas by 50% each year, greatly increasing migration while giving plenty of time for societies to adjust and absorb the flow. Or going for easy wins, like opening the border between the US and Canada.
That said, I still can’t help feeling that proponents of open borders are downplaying the changes involved, and the possible consequences.
I mean, @voximperatoris is referencing the Jim Crow south in what appears to be a positive example of a society with a racial underclass employed as servants with lynchings “on a very small scale in the grand scheme of things”. Like, I’m not trying to be snarky but that sounds like something someone might write if they were attempting to satirise the open borders position.
And @socialjusticemunchkin talking approvingly of the improved aesthetics of local inequality compared with global inequality; again, not everyone is going to share that particular aesthetic.
There are also questions of whether increased inequality within a particular society ends up causing more problems (for that society) than increased inequality globally; eg. North Sentinelese appear happier living their current lives than as servants in Silicon Valley, despite the latter being “less unequal”.
Many proponents of open borders have suggested introducing a dual track concept of citizenship, where immigrants would not gain access to the full range of social services available to current citizens. I think this also needs to be taken into account when considering what open borders would do to inequality.
So, to take a slightly different position: if seeking to move towards the abolition (as much as possible) of borders as soon as possible (leaving the obviously superior option of the Archipelago untouched as an even less realistic option: I have a marvellous plan for such an utopia this margin is too narrow to contain) is not desirable, why stop at national borders?
After all, the national borders are highly suspiciously sized. If a peaceful person with no ill intent may not migrate from Morocco to Spain, why should one be allowed to migrate from West Virginia to San Francisco?
The United States is larger than most combinations of two to numerous neighboring countries, and the differences inside the nation are staggering. The borderer regions in the Appalachia are practically third world compared to the city-state opulence of the Bay Area; and the values of the populations could hardly be more different. If poor people with backwards values being theoretically able to immigrate to the places where rich people with modern values live, shouldn’t we be more worried about the fact that any West Virginian who can purchase a plane ticket and find themselves housing and work is allowed to come to San Francisco and even vote in elections, with no border controls and centralized planning and immigration quotas to prevent the undesirable masses from flowing in without restraint? Surely Californian values and the riches and job markets of California are the fruits of the Californians’ labor, not something an Appalachian borderer may come to feast on whenever they feel like?
But furthermore, even within California we see stark differences! One does not need to venture too far inland to find different cultures and economies. Even if we build a wall around California, the problem persists; the Six Californias plan would have created both the richest and the poorest state of the Union, right next to each other! And indeed we are seeing the phenomenon of Central Californians flocking in to the Bay Area in search of work, the inevitable shantytowns kept away only by regulations that make it illegal for outsiders to ever have affordable housing. Surely it would be better to constrain this perversion and inequality machine, and establish a national border between the regions so that Silicon Valley may use 0.7% of is GDP in foreign aid to its impoverished neighbor and the shantytowns stay in Central California where they belong!
Yet even this is not enough! The neighborhood of Bayview-Hunters Point is notorious for being a honest-to-azathoth shantytown, with a racial distinction as sharp as it can ever be, right next to San Francisco itself. And indeed the denizens ever seek opportunities in the city proper, bringing their shantytownness and cheap labor downtown, driving down the wages of the hard-working residents of SoMa who, without this artificial mobility benefiting only the tech elite, could otherwise be making $50k a year even from burger-flipping! Not to mention all the services that fall under the general category of “servants to software developers” which would not be worth the genuine fair living wage of $30 an hour; the existence of this underpaid underclass allows the software developers to avoid doing their own shopping and driving and cooking and such things and instead use their time for the thing that is their comparative advantage, further driving up inequality when the equalizing effect of inefficient non-division of labor is reduced!
Indeed I say; let us restore all the borders! Back before this “enlightenment” and “emancipation” and such things, people knew their place and they would die on the same plot of land they were born onto. Let each family be bound to their own turf, never even imposing on their neighbor! Let us be truly honest in what we seek and end this charade; bring back serfdom! For only with the complete immobility of the populace, can a truly stable and equal and peaceful society be established. In our village, everyone is equal, looks the same and shares the same customs; and while we know that not every village is as prosperous as ours, we dutifully kind of pay our 0.7% of indulgences I mean aid to the Catholic Church which surely distributes it fairly to the poorest of the world instead of building a golden toilet for the pope; we have not verified this for only the Baron may ever leave this territory, but surely the virtous Church has the interests of all of us in mind!
1 month ago · tagged #shitposting #but also kind of an argument #it's highly suspicious that national borders would be the Correct level of immobility #yet i've never seen people explicitly advocate bringing the 'shooting at people who try to move' thing _inside_ their contries #racism cw · 73 notes · source: argumate · .permalink
roachpatrol:
factsinallcaps:
HARRIET TUBMAN ESCAPED FROM SLAVERY AND THEN WENT BACK TO GET OTHERS. LIKE, I KNOW YOU KNOW WHO HARRIET TUBMAN IS AND THAT SHE DID THAT, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO TAKE THAT IN FOR A SECOND.
HARRIET TUBMAN WAS HELD CAPTIVE AND BOUND TO UNPAID, BACK-BREAKING LABOR SINCE BIRTH UNDER PENALTY OF TORTURE OR DEATH. SHE MANAGED TO ESCAPE THAT LIFE, AND SHE TURNED THE FUCK AROUND AND WENT THE FUCK BACK TO GET EVERYONE ELSE WHO WAS STILL TRAPPED IN IT. AND THEN SHE DID IT AGAIN EIGHTEEN MORE TIMES.
WHEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS UNSURE WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS PREPARED TO MAKE A STAND AGAINST SLAVERY, HARRIET TUBMAN BASICALLY SAID HE SHOULD STOP BEING SUCH A DIAPER BABY AND THAT GUYS WHO ARE TOO SCARED TO END SLAVERY DON’T DESERVE TO WIN WARS.
NOT ONLY DID SHE SECRET OVER 300 SLAVES TO FREEDOM ON THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD, BUT SHE ACTED AS A SPY FOR THE UNION ARMY DURING THE CIVIL WAR, AND BECAME THE FIRST WOMAN TO LEAD AN ARMED ASSAULT IN THE CIVIL WAR. THAT RAID BROUGHT FREEDOM TO OVER 700 SLAVES IN ONE GO.
SO I JUST WANT YOU TO STEW ON THAT FOR LIKE A MINUTE. ACTING IN THE SHADOWS, SHE WALKED INTO HELL ON EARTH 19 TIMES TO SAVE HER FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS FROM THE TORMENT SHE ENDURED, AND THE SECOND SHE WAS GIVEN EVEN A MODICUM OF POWER, SHE MANAGED TO FREE SEVEN HUNDRED SLAVES IN ONE DAY.
I GUARANTEE, HOWEVER IMPRESSED YOU ALREADY ARE WITH HARRIET TUBMAN, YOU ARE FALLING LIKE AT LEAST 40% SHORT OF HOW IMPRESSED YOU SHOULD BE WITH HARRIET TUBMAN. SHE IS ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES OF BADASSERY IN THE ENTIRETY OF AMERICAN HISTORY.
OKAY LISTEN IN ADDITION TO MAKING BOTH CAPTAIN AMERICA AND MOSES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT LOOK LIKE A PAIR OF GODDAMN UNDERACHIEVERS SHE DID ALL THIS WITH CHRONIC PAIN FROM A TRAUMATIC HEAD INJURY.
WHEN SHE WAS FUCKING TWELVE YEARS OLD SHE TRIED TO INTERVENE IN THE BEATING OF ANOTHER SLAVE AND GOT HER HEAD CRACKED OPEN FROM IT. A CHILD. A CHILD BORN INTO SLAVERY. AND SHE WENT UP AGAINST A PISSED OFF WHITE MAN WHO LITERALLY OWNED HER TO TRY AND HELP, LIKE, SHIT, I DON’T WANT TO GO TOE-TO-TOE WITH PISSED OFF WHITE MEN AND I’M WHITE AND IT’S THE 21st CENTURY. SO OKAY THEN HERE’S THIS WOMAN, FIVE FOOT NOTHING, DISABLED, HAD NARCOLEPSY AND HEADACHES AND VISIONS, DECIDED THOSE VISIONS WERE FROM GOD, AND PERSONALLY DELIVERED A THOUSAND HUMAN BEINGS FROM ONE OF THE CRUELEST FORMS OF ENSLAVEMENT IN HISTORY. OH, AND AFTER ALL THAT SHE LIVED UNTIL SHE WAS FUCKING NINETY.
HARRIET TUBMAN WAS LITERALLY A PALADIN.
ITT: literally an IRL superhero
(via multiheaded1793)
2 months ago · tagged #racism cw #slavery cw #violence cw · 161,833 notes · source: factsinallcaps · .permalink
wirehead-wannabe:
ozymandias271:
I have come up with a WAY OF MEASURING CUCKS
The gram of our cuck-measuring system is the cuck proper: a small-penised unmanly white man’s white wife has casual sex with a manly large-penised man of a race white nationalists are insecure about, she gets pregnant and he raises the child, and he gets off on it because it is humiliating. This will be rated “1″.
Things that participate to a degree in the Form of Cuck may now be ranked. For instance, using a sperm donor is about 0.2 cucks; supporting open borders is about 0.6 cucks (points have been subtracted for it being metaphorical). One may easily deduce which man is cucking which man, by carefully assessing which one’s cuck score is higher. Thus, we have settled such thorny issues as “if I’m poly but my husband’s dick is bigger than my boyfriend’s, who am I cucking?” (The husband, unless the boyfriend has spent at least $100 per extra inch on you.)
In rare cases, one may have over one cuck: for instance, if one has sex with the local cult leader one’s husband dislikes and then hangs around in a shirt saying “Harem Member of the Rightful Caliph” in order to annoy him, that would be at least two cucks. However, these extreme circumstances should be left to the experienced cuckologist, because of the danger they may pose to the unwary.
This is good, but I feel like habitual cucking should get more points than a single instance of casual sex.
Okay but a few important questions about cuckness levels that I can’t find the answer for anywhere:
If a trans woman has sex with a neoreactionary’s wife, is it less cuck (because women don’t count) or more cuck (because neoreactionaries see trans women as failed men and thus especially humiliating to be surpassed by)? How does the state and proportion of her genitals factor into this?
All in all, what is the relationship of penis size and cuckness? Does it invert in “non-legitimate” situations; is it extra cuck for a manly big-dicked guy to still fail to keep his wife monogamous, and supercuck if the guy cucking the husband has a micropenis?
If there is an inversion where the big-dicked husband is cucking the poly boyfriend, but the micropenised paramour is cucking the husband, can we construct a situation of exactly zero cucks for any given combination by manipulating the degree of legitimacy of the relationships?
How about gender and cuck? Is this strictly binhet only or is the model able to deal with bis and enbies? Is there an inflection point where enbies stop being counted as members of the gender everyone misgenders them as or is it roughly linear all the way? Or are there “uncanny valleys” of enbie cuck that are especially un/cuck; what kind of a fuction should we use to fit the graph? How is cuck counted for lesbians or gay men?
Is ability to theoretically/actually get pregnant/sire a spawn how significant? If a trans woman and a trans man have a genetic child together, how does the cuckulus work?
How do political views factor into cuck? In the standard measurement reference, what are the assumed opinions of the participants? Is supporting open borders still cuck if one is of a race white nationalists are insecure about? Can we get a thorough ordering of nationalities in order of cuckness; I know Sweden is first but which one comes next (for the sake of simplicity let’s just assume a median or mean representative of the populations)? How about ethnicities and religions? Is a white muslim convert more or less cucky than a syriac christian?
So many important questions.
2 months ago · tagged #cucked in the cuck by my own cuck #nsfw text #cissexism cw #racism cw · 51 notes · source: ozymandias271 · .permalink