|
I thought these people were big Soylent fans??
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
I think its the first thing that bothers me the most. This constant classification of women as objects that age and spoil like milk and exist only to satisfy their rotten dicks. "I am owed a peasant slave wife"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
You too would form hosed up opinions of women if you looked like this: Though, come to think of it, a few of the NRx nerds have conned women into sleeping with them. I think Sargon of Akkad has a child with some really unfortunate woman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:For a while, I thought the author of Tarzan wrote Naked Lunch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
They get so close to understanding how patriarchy uses/harms/pwns/cvcks men too. They get thiis close to feminism and social justice, but the pull of bigotry or whatever is too strong and they spiral away into weird orbits instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:You too would form hosed up opinions of women if you looked like this: If his face wasn't a different length on one side compared to the other, he'd be a fine example of middle aged man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:They get so close to understanding how patriarchy uses/harms/pwns/cvcks men too. They get thiis close to feminism and social justice, but the pull of bigotry or whatever is too strong and they spiral away into weird orbits instead. The "distributed conspiracy" of The Cathedral is so, so close to concepts like patriarchy and white supremacy (except, you know, loving wrong) that it's doubly infuriating. Like you can't really mock the logic behind The Cathedral, only that NRxers care about the wrong things and are horrendously lazy about classifying things.* *Case in point, the New York Times, which according to neoreactionaries is one of the four horsemen of the Marxist apocalypse, and according to anybody to the left of Hillary Clinton, it's your dad's milquetoast news rag that cheerled for the Iraq War, loving loves neoliberalism, didn't get around to supporting gay marriage until the public already tilted in support of it, and employs craven right-wing dipshits like Maureen Dowd, Ross Douthat, and David "Applebee's salad bar" Brooks. It's moderate at best, not liberal, and Paul Krugman aside it's a very rich-person-friendly idea of liberalism for the most part. Anybody who thinks of themselves as a critical thinkers yet looks at the NYT and think it's some great bastion of depravity and progressivism hasn't got a loving clue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
The NYT has an entire section devoted to fawning over rich and successful people who have no particular problems and whose concerns are the literal definition of First World Problems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:They get so close to understanding how patriarchy uses/harms/pwns/cvcks men too. They get thiis close to feminism and social justice, but the pull of bigotry or whatever is too strong and they spiral away into weird orbits instead. Well yeah. Accepting that the patriarchy and similar structures actually hurt men that don't conform to rigid and outdated roles would mean: Admitting that you're not an ultra-Alpha He-Man Realizing that although your lot sucks women and minorities got a worse deal. Coming to terms with the fact that your historical analysis was fatally flawed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:Well yeah. Accepting that the patriarchy and similar structures actually hurt men that don't conform to rigid and outdated roles would mean: No it goes the other way, you see they started as wee tots at the societal default of "feminism is good" which is apparently what everyone thinks because of the matriarchy or whatever and then saw ~the truth~ that um actually girls are icky in highschool and are now redpilled or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:No it goes the other way, you see they started as wee tots at the societal default of "feminism is good" which is apparently what everyone thinks because of the matriarchy or whatever and then saw ~the truth~ that um actually girls are icky in highschool and are now redpilled or whatever [Achilles] goes to Troy, and after the first battle, orders his men to loot the temple of Apollo. So his men dump a kingly share of the temple loot in his tent, part of that loot being a dazzlingly beautiful girl, a virgin dedicated to Apollo tied up in his tent. And then he just … he … he just totally fails to act like a man. In addition to being famous, and a hero, and the greatest warrior ever, and a living legend, he is also unbelievably handsome. But I swear, that there is no way that girl would voluntarily bed him in real life, if he acts like that. Now I am old, and fat, and no one terribly important, and I look like Jabba the Hut, but if I had had a few hours with that girl in my tent, she and I would have been going at it like weasels in heat. You know why boys are no drat good with girls these days. Because they watch movies like that. They are taught to respect women. But women do not really want to be respected. And what is this girl that Achilles should respect her? After that scene, I just could not watch the film any more, because I just could not see Achilles as a man. Just some kind of cuck. Real men just don’t treat women like that. It is not just that it will not get you laid. It is unmanly. It is wrong. It is gay. It is effeminate. OK. In the workplace I have to treat women like that or be fired, but it burns. OK, I bend to power and grit my teeth and suffer the humiliation, but the whole Achilles story is that he does not bend to power. Show him acting like a cuck, then there is no story any more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Found a guy similar to hbomb, and this video I like Kevin but it's more for the opportunity to hate-watch MRA videos without giving their parent channel views than his commentary. He preaches to the choir, which is fine, but hbomb is special in how he deconstructs their worldview so that even they understand why they're wrong, even if they can't admit it. Kevin just calls them names. A White Guy posted:You too would form hosed up opinions of women if you looked like this: This is kinda hosed because I'm a giant socially awkward grognard and I never had any difficulty grasping basic facts of life like "women are human beings and should be treated as such". Poisonous ideas about gender can come from rejection, sure, but only when the subject is totally incapable of self-reflection - the real culprit, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Yeah seriously, I'm no prize pig either and I managed to not do, uh, whatever it is you'd call what these folks do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
I'm basically the stereotypical loner nerd who found some friends in jr/hs and even I didn't get lovely views like them. Maybe it's because I never once had a crush on anyone ever. Even then I understood that people are people regardless of appearance, and people don't exist to serve my narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Eliezer Yudkowsky is not exactly a champion feminist, but it's a bit unfair to call him as bad as neo-reactionaries on these things. At least Eliezer grasps the idea of a safe word and consent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
"But maybe if you don't sleep with me now the great computer god will simulate a version of you ten thousand years from now and torture it forever."
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:"But maybe if you don't sleep with me now the great computer god will simulate a version of you ten thousand years from now that will"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Something tells me this was created immediately after a couple parents tried kicking their weird fascist son out of the basement after he accused them of being the reason he couldn't bring lithe 17 year old virgins home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
snucks posted:Something tells me this was created immediately after a couple parents tried kicking their weird fascist son out of the basement after he accused them of being the reason he couldn't bring lithe 17 year old virgins home. God these losers have such a lovely grasp of history. Virginity was prized, sure, but there were definitely places where having child, even one out of wedlock, could increase your marital value (not among the nobility, but among the serfs) because it proved you could have a child and live. In a world where childbirth was hugely fatal one could see why that might be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:God these losers have such a lovely grasp of history. Virginity was prized, sure, but there were definitely places where having child, even one out of wedlock, could increase your marital value (not among the nobility, but among the serfs) because it proved you could have a child and live. In a world where childbirth was hugely fatal one could see why that might be. Pretty sure they reject all forms of social history (or any form of historical document that wasn't recorded by the king's personal scribe or whatever) as ~cultural marxist lies~ so it's not surprising they come to weird warped conclusions on what a serf's life actually involved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:After that scene, I just could not watch the film any more, because I just could not see Achilles as a man. Just some kind of cuck. Real men just don’t treat women like that. It is not just that it will not get you laid. It is unmanly. It is wrong. It is gay. It is effeminate. I want to tell this dude about Patroclus and watch him go nova. MC Nietzche posted:God these losers have such a lovely grasp of history. Virginity was prized, sure, but there were definitely places where having child, even one out of wedlock, could increase your marital value (not among the nobility, but among the serfs) because it proved you could have a child and live. In a world where childbirth was hugely fatal one could see why that might be. Didn't serfs/peasants also tend to marry later than nobility, too, given the different economic factors at play (more of a need to support parents' household / less drive to cement alliances via early marriage / etc.)? Maybe I'm misremembering that, but it still seems like serfdom wouldn't have gotten these dudes their ~perfect child brides,~ even before we get into considerations like "backbreaking physical labor from early childhood on doesn't make you look like a sexy anime waifu" and "mites, dude, mites."
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:God these losers have such a lovely grasp of history. Virginity was prized, sure, but there were definitely places where having child, even one out of wedlock, could increase your marital value (not among the nobility, but among the serfs) because it proved you could have a child and live. In a world where childbirth was hugely fatal one could see why that might be. Got a citation for this? I could use it for my article collection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:Didn't serfs/peasants also tend to marry later than nobility, too, given the different economic factors at play (more of a need to support parents' household / less drive to cement alliances via early marriage / etc.)? Maybe I'm misremembering that, but it still seems like serfdom wouldn't have gotten these dudes their ~perfect child brides,~ even before we get into considerations like "backbreaking physical labor from early childhood on doesn't make you look like a sexy anime waifu" and "mites, dude, mites." The opposite, unfortunately. Serf's married extremely young (like 13/14) because you needed to have as many children as possible before you or your wife were killed by some myriad factor (a bad harvest, disease, a passing army/bandits/a mob of angry serfs). You find this kind of pattern in the world where society is still very backward - people get married extremely young, a lot of women die in childbirth, so you find men who are in their thirties (and missing quite a few of their teeth) getting married to young girls because their previous wife died in childbirth. Also, if you really want to idolize serf life, prepare to have less than 50% of your children live to adulthood, so 4 out of 11 kids, in some cases. Average people actually lived fairly long - life expectancy, provided you didn't die in childbirth, was about 60 years old in the more affluent parts of the medieval world, but people who worked in the fields rarely lived past 50. Getting into your 40s was considered old age, where nowadays, dying at 45 would be considered a youngish death. Also, don't forget that most people suffered some form of malnutrition their whole lives, so those perfect child brides often came with a variety of hosed up bones (hunchback, aka scoliosis, not being that uncommon), eyes, teeth, or diseases that come with not getting enough proper nutrients.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Not to mention the crushing social conformities. The Twilight Zone version of his fantasy would be him getting burned at the stake in front of a literal cathedral.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Also, don't forget that most people suffered some form of malnutrition their whole lives, so those perfect child brides often came with a variety of hosed up bones (hunchback, aka scoliosis, not being that uncommon), eyes, teeth, or diseases that come with not getting enough proper nutrients. Plus various diseases and poxes. Enjoy your nubile virgin with the pox scars everywhere!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Puppy Time posted:Plus various diseases and poxes. Enjoy your nubile virgin with the pox scars everywhere! Virgin assuming one of the feudal lords you'll be toiling for hasn't raped her, because you better believe that poo poo was common.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:32
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Virgin assuming one of the feudal lords you'll be toiling for hasn't raped her, because you better believe that poo poo was common. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:For a while, I thought the author of Tarzan wrote Naked Lunch. these people wouldnt make it a year in medieval society. The Vosgian Beast posted:Virgin assuming one of the feudal lords you'll be toiling for hasn't raped her, because you better believe that poo poo was common. Yeah but then young peasant lad /pol/ can march of to the castle to fight for his ladies honor. then idietly be gutted by the a guard and his body hung outside the gate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:
The unkindest cvck of them all
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:For a while, I thought the author of Tarzan wrote Naked Lunch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:I know the adoption of the word "cuck" is cringe inducing and slightly irritating, but I'm glad that these movements have done so and then overused it, because its a lovely little litmus test. As soon as you see the word you think "ohhh, you're one of those guys". Would you say it's... Efficient signalling?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:these people wouldnt make it a year in medieval society. I'd doubt they'd make it a day, they'd probably piss off the wrong person since ~free speech means speech without consequences~ and be summarily executed right then and there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:The opposite, unfortunately. Serf's married extremely young (like 13/14) because you needed to have as many children as possible before you or your wife were killed by some myriad factor (a bad harvest, disease, a passing army/bandits/a mob of angry serfs). You find this kind of pattern in the world where society is still very backward - people get married extremely young, a lot of women die in childbirth, so you find men who are in their thirties (and missing quite a few of their teeth) getting married to young girls because their previous wife died in childbirth. The big bottleneck historically was always childhood. If you made it to 20 you were fairly likely to make it to 60 or even 70, barring further mishaps, or at least so I have gathered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I'd doubt they'd make it a day, they'd probably piss off the wrong person since ~free speech means speech without consequences~ and be summarily executed right then and there. You just know when Moldbug claims to be a free speech advocate, the idea is not that he's for free speech in the absolutist sense. And ironically, many of his supporters are. He'll probably be fine with a feudal lord castrating someone who insults his manhood, or something. Might makes right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:While this is of course broadly true, do you have some backup for that latter stuff? I mean if nearly everyone was dying in their late 40s, it seems like the average couldn't possibly have been as high as you describe, because the vast majority of people were in fact primary producers of that sort. I don't think it's a large trend of middle-aged death, just that there was probably a lot more opportunity to die at the time (especially from medical problems) than in most areas today. From what I've heard, the life expectancy for men was reasonably high. (Women had it harder because of the childbirth thing.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
That "you had to marry at 14 all the time to pop out maximum babies" stuff runs directly counter to all the scholarship I've read -- it was definitely not true in towns and cities (where marriage age was often pushed into the mid or upper 20s just because a guy had to get to a point in his career where he could supoprt a family), and it's also not borne out by overall demographic data in a period when not enough people lived in towns and cities to be responsible for the overall demographics. Wikipedia (  but -- ) says:quote:Indeed, Medieval England saw marriage age as variable depending on economic circumstances, with couples delaying marriage until the early twenties when times were bad and the average age falling to the late teens after the Black Death, when there were labor shortages;[35] by appearances, marriage of adolescents was not the norm in England.[13] Both sourced to "The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England," by Barbara Hanawalt in 1986, and admittedly I think most of my own books were originally printed in the '80s and '90s -- has recent scholarship uncovered a bunch of evidence for 13-year-olds loving? e: I mean, yeah, the "marry young 'n' pop out kids" stuff applied during demographics disasters, but that wasn't The Way It Was For The Entire Middle Ages by any means e2: ALSO also, average age of menarche was 13-15 in the middle ages, higher than modern because of dietary factors, and it's not safe for the mother to have a child at the age of 14 or immediately after menarche. If you're going to play like these fuckos and view women as baby-making cattle, you're going to wait until they're physically mature enough to have higher odds of surviving the already-hazardous experience of childbirth, so you might get more than one out of her. InediblePenguin has a new favorite as of 05:05 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:Not to mention the crushing social conformities. I'd watch that on loop
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
InediblePenguin posted:That "you had to marry at 14 all the time to pop out maximum babies" stuff runs directly counter to all the scholarship I've read -- it was definitely not true in towns and cities (where marriage age was often pushed into the mid or upper 20s just because a guy had to get to a point in his career where he could supoprt a family), and it's also not borne out by overall demographic data in a period when not enough people lived in towns and cities to be responsible for the overall demographics. Wikipedia ( This isn't my area (although what the area actually is, is a bit vague) but what you're saying accords with what I've read in more recent work on the transition from late medieval to early modern, at least. (For disclosure, this was a seminar on the origins and development of capitalism, so medieval demographics weren't a core topic.) Marriage ages varied quite a bit, often being pushed back later in times of economic prosperity (I'm thinking here of the late 14th and early 15th century "recovery" period after the late medieval crisis (which included but was not limited to the Black Death)). If "get breeding as soon as physically possible" was a norm at any point or anywhere, it wasn't always and everywhere. quote:e: I mean, yeah, the "marry young 'n' pop out kids" stuff applied during demographics disasters, but that wasn't The Way It Was For The Entire Middle Ages by any means A big part of the problem is a tendency to conceive of Ye Olde Tymes as some monolithic universal human condition beginning ~6000 BC and ending some time n the 19th century. Whether this conception romanticizes a fantasy of agrarian patriarchy or its dirt-smeared opposite, it ignores variation over time and across locations. There's an urban and rural divide, as you point out, but there's also regional variation. I don't know that many average Chinese people alive during the rough medieval era we're talking about would envy the lot of European commoners. But then again, they had the benefit of absolute monarchs before it was cool in Europe. (Now I'll wait for someone who actually knows Chinese history to tell me that China before the Great Divergence wasn't actually all that great for ordinary people or that the Divergence theory isn't even accepted anymore, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:Not to mention the crushing social conformities. I imagine that all these people as the fascist middle-manager who wanted to televise Burgess Meredith getting killed but then panicked and begged to escape when he would get blown up too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
GunnerJ posted:A big part of the problem is a tendency to conceive of Ye Olde Tymes as some monolithic universal human condition beginning ~6000 BC and ending some time n the 19th century. Whether this conception romanticizes a fantasy of agrarian patriarchy or its dirt-smeared opposite, it ignores variation over time and across locations. There's an urban and rural divide, as you point out, but there's also regional variation. I don't know that many average Chinese people alive during the rough medieval era we're talking about would envy the lot of European commoners. But then again, they had the benefit of absolute monarchs before it was cool in Europe. (Now I'll wait for someone who actually knows Chinese history to tell me that China before the Great Divergence wasn't actually all that great for ordinary people or that the Divergence theory isn't even accepted anymore, etc.) China has never been all that great for ordinary people in its entire history. Well, no, there were a few golden ages. But other than that, not real swell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 06:11
|
|