NASA Warns Two Asteroids Could Cause Atmospheric Explosion Over Earth This
Week
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/nasa-warns-two-asteroids-could-cause-atmospheric-explosion-over-earth-week
https://themindunleashed.com/2020/03/nasa-warns-two-asteroids-could-cause-atmospheric-explosion-over-earth-this-week.html
As if 2020 weren’t overwhelming enough, in addition to the potential start
of World War 3, the massive fires in Australia, the locust plague in the Middle
East and Africa, and the novel coronavirus, we are now dealing with multiple
asteroids hurtling towards Earth. One of the asteroids may even collide with
Earth’s atmosphere resulting in an atmospheric explosion tonight!
https://www.zmescience.com/science/asteroid-close-approach-airburst-135134/
...
In more apocalyptic news, "If you don't want to slut-shame, then you're going
to get a lot of sluts:"
If You Don’t Shame Sluts, You Will End Up with a Slut Overload
http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/if-you-dont-shame-sluts-you-will-end-up-with-a-slut-overload/
[img] "It's My Hot Body, I'll Do What I Want"
A novel male feminist argument that I have seen popping up recently in
defense of sluts is that “women don’t have agency,” and thus cannot be held
responsible for their behavior, whatever it is. The theory then goes that men
are responsible for all female behavior, because men do have “agency.”
Let’s first make sure we understand our terms.
What do they mean when they speak of “agency”?
They are talking about the philosophical concept of “moral agency” or
“human agency.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)
Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment. The
capacity to act does not at first imply a specific moral dimension to the
ability to make the choice to act, and moral agency is therefore a distinct
concept. In sociology, an agent is an individual engaging with the social
structure. Notably, though, the primacy of social structure vs. individual
capacity with regard to persons’ actions is debated within sociology. This
debate concerns, at least partly, the level of reflexivity an agent may possess.
Agency may either be classified as unconscious, involuntary behavior,
or purposeful, goal directed activity (intentional action). An agent typically
has some sort of immediate awareness of their physical activity and the goals
that the activity is aimed at realizing. In ‘goal directed action’ an agent
implements a kind of direct control or guidance over their own behavior.
If women “don’t have agency,” then the argument is that all women are
literally mindless, soulless automatons, who are incapable of engaging in free
will choice.
It follows then that the behavior of women, and the actions that they do
take, are based entirely on external factors, as they do not have any internal
capacity for decision making.
[img] "Libre Mientras Sigan Habiendo Doofus"
The logical conclusion from this line of reasoning is that men need to
build a structured society wherein there are solid incentives for women to
behave in certain ways. This would involve both positive and negative
reinforcement.
So we must ask: what behaviors do we want to encourage from women, and
which do we want to discourage?
Presumably, we all have a similar idea about this.
Good female behavior: [ok, so we know for a fact that this is gonna go down
reeeel well with the anarchist crowd :D]
- Modesty
- Marriage at a young age
- Producing many children
- Obeying husband
- Staying loyal to husband
Bad female behavior:
- Sluttiness
- Refusing marriage in favor of seeking “adventure” and a career
- Refusing to produce children, taking birth control, having abortions
- Marrying in late twenties or early thirties
- Getting a divorce
Currently, the government and the media are the only groups which are able
to offer most incentives to women.
However, there is one form of negative reinforcement that we can all engage
in and that is “slut-shaming.”
Slut-shaming has a huge effect on women, as they respond very strongly to
negative social pressure. If a woman feels like men and other women think she
is a slut, she feels very bad about herself. Thus, if a woman sees that another
woman has been labeled a slut for engaging in a certain type of behavior, she
is likely to avoid that behavior.
So, for example, if a woman has sex with a disgusting Jew Hollywood
producer, and everyone calls her a filthy slut, other women will see that and
say “I’d better not have sex with a disgusting Jew Hollywood producer, or
people will label me a filthy slut.”
[img] "Men of Simping Quality, Respect Women's Equality"
Conversely, if a woman who has sex with a disgusting Jew Hollywood producer
is labeled a victim, and is celebrated for her bravery, you are giving positive
reinforcement to the behavior pattern.
This discussion of “moral agency” is convoluted and esoteric. There is
clearly no way to see inside of a woman’s head and understand the mechanisms
upon which her decision process acts.
What we are able to see is that women are extremely sensitive to social
shaming, and that they will act accordingly to how society ranks their behavior.
If we decide that as a society, we will not shame sluts, then our society
is going to end up with a lot of sluts.
I do not think that any of us want a society full of sluts, and thus I
think we should all be able to agree on the fact that we should shame sluts by
calling them out as sluts.
[img] "F*@k Robin Thicke"
This will make women feel bad. That is the point of negative reinforcement.
It is used to make an example of women who engage in bad behavior so that other
women will not engage in that behavior.
The problem is that neo-Nazis and other male feminists, being agents of
women, will always work to remove any and all consequences for the behavior of
women, so that women are able to do whatever they want without facing any
consequences.
