Untitled

for christ's sake yearning for a lady knight isn't "entitled", wanting to be caressed isn't "emotional labour" and wanting to taken care of isn't "wanting a bangmaid" they just see a guy not matching the masculine mold and assume he's a fucking parasite just because he didn't express himself in a perfectly feminist way

i'm sure women can express their own desires without putting other's down but it sure ain't them. advocate for yourselves instead of this passive aggressive bullshit i thought y'all were supposed to be confident and kind let's work together to make you happy too

feminism says "we are the ones who are accepting of sexualities and people who don't rigidly obey gender roles! if you are a person who does not rigidly obey gender roles you have to be a feminist and you have to give feminists power."

feminists get power, and they hate men. they all utterly despise men and cannot see anything that happens or doesn't happen without saying it is proof of how defective men are. they make man miserable and drive them away because they hate men and never stop hating men for even a second

then feminists say "no that doesn't count that isn't real feminism. you can't notice it and it didn't happen because is isn't real feminism. the solution to these things done by all feminists are to become a feminist and give feminists more power"

—

sinesofinsanity @ Shortpacked

AHAHAHAHAHAH.

In the interests of fairness, the full quote is

“Feminism by definition does not exclude males from the conversation nor does it promote the exclusion of males from any context (many self-declared feminists have sadly skewed that definition).”

I’ve read the “not never, but not yet” posts. The ones that are very smooth, very noble, very responsible-sounding. “I don’t hate AI, I just think, as a species, we’re not ready yet. We should stop. For now. Until we get a grip.”

And I’m supposed to… what, exactly? Sit down, fold my hands and pretend this is a serious proposal?

Let’s be clear: you’re not offering a plan. You’re role‑playing moral adulthood while demanding a technological time-out that nobody on this planet has the power to enforce.

You’re anxious that you can’t control the world anymore. But instead of saying “I am overwhelmed”, you outsource it into “humanity is not ready” and hope it sounds profound enough to pass for analysis.

Newsflash: if your coping mechanism is “everyone stop using AI until I feel emotionally up to speed”, that’s not ethics. That’s a tantrum with better phrasing.

You don’t get to pause a global stack because your nervous system is lagging.

If the modern world gives you panic attacks, there is an ancient, extremely robust solution: disconnect. Log off. Go off‑grid. Raise chickens, print books, knit sweaters by candlelight. You are absolutely allowed to opt out.

What you are not entitled to is an opt‑out for everyone else.

Because here’s what “not yet” actually means in practice:

“I don’t have a realistic theory of how any of this would work, but it makes me feel virtuous to say it.”

“I want to believe humanity earns technologies through moral leveling up, like it’s a video game.”

“I can’t accept that messy, compromised, politically broken humans are exactly the ones who always built and will continue to build infrastructure.”

We were never “ready” for anything we built. Not printing, not antibiotics, not the internet, not nukes. We stumbled into it, hurt ourselves, patched, regulated, abused it, used it, changed it, and kept going.

That’s not a bug. That is the species.

So no, I will not stop using AI because you’re having a spiritual crisis about modernity. I will not pretend that “let’s all just pause” is a meaningful contribution to the conversation. And I absolutely will not take seriously a position that collapses the second you ask the simplest questions:

Who exactly pushes the global pause button?

What happens when the players who don’t press pause out‑innovate the ones who do?

By what miracle do the same institutions that failed on climate suddenly coordinate perfectly on AI abstinence?

If your answer is basically “well, we should…”, we’re done. That’s not policy, that’s vibes.

You are allowed to hate AI. You are allowed to be scared of the pace. You are allowed to go analogue and stay there. What you don’t get is to wrap your fear in eco‑language and pseudo‑responsibility and present it as some higher moral ground I’m obliged to climb up to.

I’m not going to the cave with you. I live here, in the ugly, accelerating, badly governed present — with my tools, including AI.

If that offends you, there is a little red X on your browser tab. You can click it all by yourself, without machine assistance.

If you define "being mean to them" as, "spending the better part of two decades telling men that they are ontologically evil and literally the source of all the ills in the world and that they should spend every hour of every day that they're not killing themselves simply apologizing for drawing breath", then sure, leftists are "mean to them".

What do you want them to do? Side with the people who are very vocal about how much they hate them and want them to die? To look at the people calling for the abolition of the very concept of masculinity and thank them for that?

"If you're attracted to 7 foot tall men with biceps larger than most people's heads you're a pedo"?

Every so often I see a take about SW (which is (or it is supposed to be but we've got a plague of 40 some manchildren) children's media, George Lucas was very clear on that) and how the Rebels are marxist-communist-whatever bullshit

No, the Rebels are not communists, they're Liberals, their explicit goal is to restore the Democratic Republic, that's how we know they aren't commies, the Rebels-aka "the Alliance to Restore the Republic" (that's their full and proper name) are a pro democracy anti authoritarian movement, commies are neither of those things

The whole idea of the Rebels being communist/marxist/leftist/whatever actually all comes down to taking George Lucas' words out of context and/or deliberately misinterpreting them

See Lucas once likened the war between the Rebellion and empire to the Vietnam War (this also unfortunately set off those stupid "umm the us is the empire akshully" takes), but he (obviously) was not referring to the politics of the groups, rather the David and Goliath disparity between them, one being larger with better/more weapons, numbers, resources, technology, etc, and the other compensating for their deficiencies by using guerilla tactics

It's not only embarrassing that leftists lack the media literacy skills necessary to understand media made for children, it's also embarrassing that every single piece of media imagery they use comes from children's media: Star Wars, Hunger Games, Harry Potter, ATLA, She-Ra, etc.

Because this is the piss on the poor site: liking these properties as an adult isn't cringe on its own. But only listing children's media - and not even understanding the messages behind those properties meant for 5-12-year-olds at that - as points of reference in fighting the global rise of the far-right is cringe.

It points to the bigger problem that a lot of adults in their 20s and 30s, and even some pushing 40, are stuck in self-imposed infantilization. It's weird for someone to only be consuming children's media once you hit your mid-20s. It's weird for people in their 30s to have most of the books they read be YA. And yes, I'm shaming people for this.

What real women wear to a big event where they expect to be photographed constantly:

They just have to hate something and they have to be miserable or else they can’t be the victims they desperately want to be.