Uriel238 [all pronouns]

  • 20 Posts
  • 265 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle
  • There are pretty sex offenders and ugly ones in every generation. Since US society used sexuality as a device of control the way dangerous cults do, we produce a lot kids who think human beings only have sex through coercion or opportunistic vulnerability (e.g. drunk girls at parties.)

    So it makes for a lot of potential sex offenders.

    Maybe some day we’ll toss abstinence only sex ed into a blast furnace and start teaching kids about consent.

    But then we’ll realize that click-wrapped TOS on our devices and hardware are bad-faith contracts we’re coerced to agree to. And that just wouldn’t do for our shadowy capitalist masters.


  • Three of them are boomers who argued that spousal rape is not a crime (a controvery in the 1970s, when NAMBLA was active and child marriage wasn’t given a second thought) and the other one is trying super hard to be literal Himmler (though he’s earning enough Heydrich points to break the machine).

    Observe that this very same demographic is still trying to hold onto power as they lose their faculties.


  • I think that’s why Epstein suffered an unfortunate prison accident. Some very vippy VIPs are in the list.

    I didn’t think Epstein kept a list, rather I figured a multinational cadre of investigations bureaus uncovered paper trails linking VIPs by the dozens and Epstein (and his parties of trafficked children) and that is the alleged list.

    Since the US DoJ and DHS are captured, it’s up to the rest of the international community to see justice done. And since King Fucking Charles has had proximity with Epstein, its awkward for the industrialized world.

    Dirt on Charles would be enough to launch an army of ninjas and fixers, alone. And since his connection with Epstein has been white washed, that gives cover to anyone else also connected to Epstein that would be awkward to the First World (the industrialislzed western bloc).





  • In psychology, it’s called attitude polarization, where we ignore data that conflicts with an ideology while accepting data that confirms it. It’s a known common human bias.

    Scientists train themselves to accept new data as challenging old presumptions (that maybe the old model is false, or simplistic and some unconsidered noise is affecting observed data)… at least when they’re doing real science. Failure to do so, and to cling to older models, is how old dudes get tagged as hidebound reactionaries. And even Einstein couldn’t square his feelings regarding Heisenberg probability models of quantum dynamics.








  • New parties are useless at the federal level so long as elections are First-Past-The-Post. Even the Ross Perot’s Reform Party in 1992 and 1996 only served as a spoiler for the Republican party, and his was an immensely strong attempt at forming a new party, featuring a reasoned platform which Perot showcased with charts every night on television.

    This is why Musk’s America party is laughable, even if he really, really meant it, and offered a platform of sound governance.

    While Sanders caucuses with the Democratic party, and they make him sit at the kids’ table with AOC and the other Socialist Democrats, he has been able to get a lot of legislation in or blocked with skilled use of Senate procedure.

    But the current situation is well beyond even his powers of procedural mischief. We can’t rely on officials or left-wing news media to save the US from oligarchy and eventually monarchy.

    Violent or non-violent, we’ll have to do it ourselves, and it’s almost certain that if we pressure them nonviolently (say with massive demonstrations or with a general strike), then Trump will try to do January 6th once again, probably with more guns and explosives. He’ll certainly bring out his ICE Stormtroopers (now in fancy armor) and try to invoke the military.

    So we need to expect a fight, and preferably do what the lords did with John of England, make it super clear that he is out-manned and out-armed and will be given no quarter, if it comes down to violence. (Even the Magna Carta took a few tries)

    27+ dead little girls at Camp Mystic has shown us it’s ugly already, but non-violence makes it more difficult for bystanders to dismiss the resistance as terrorists. (FOX News, etc. will paint us as terrorists anyway.)

    I don’t know how we get to an organized general strike at speed (usually it takes years, and we don’t have years), and there are groups like indivisible that are trying. I don’t know if it’s enough, especially once ICE gets its massive infusion of equipment, manpower and fancy trenchcoats.



  • Not really. Our as I use it implies I, personally, am from the US and that I feel I have some responsibility as a participant in US society (at least, in my case, northern California society).

    Contrast using it’s to refer to the US state or their indicating I’m on the exterior.

    Just as your can mean possessed by you personally or possessed by you, collectively our pronouns can be versitile and ambiguous.

    I was writing in good faith, but it is always up to you whether you can trust that.

    ETA: I don’t know the injury rates or the school-to-professional pipeline of association football, which is highly celebrated in throughout the rest of the world. I do know FIFA experiences high levels of corruption and labor exploitation as NFL or AFL, so there are still reasons for society to regard its sports leagues less. Hominids be hominids, I guess.





  • I do understand there are some mores (or taboos) that we commonly will find a rationality for, even when there isn’t a logical reason for it. A big one is the emphasis of high-contact sports programs in our education system. A lot of lives get ruined (and a few ended) every year to gridiron football injuries in the US, and yet it is difficult to imagine ending football programs in our high-schools and colleges (even if to switch to sports that involve less risk).

    There was a study about instinctive mores, featuring the story of Julie and Mark (an adult sister and brother who go camping, have sex, decide not to do it again, but are not harmed by the encounter), and not only did subjects assert such a coupling was morally wrong, but would seek out reasons to justify their belief, even if it didn’t fit the specific circumstances. Similarly, it’s a common assumption that gay sexual relations between relatives is taboo, even though the commonly understood purpose of the proscription (to avoid conceiving children with birth defects) is not actually possible in the relationship.

    For this reason, some social problems that exist (such as the social isolation of boys and young men that puts them at risk of turning to the alt-right) that we are disinclined to address (I’ve heard the sentiment before: sure, they’re suffering, but fuck those guys ) because we have a collective drive to see those issues in a specific way, such as holding contempt for teenage boys as a demographic, even when we know it will drive them into organized hate groups.