I put up a fun meme on twitter and facebook. Well, fun in so far as it’s also horrifying, considering the google searches portrayed. It was this:
This ah…. bronzing up of the concept of censorship, btw, is part of the push of the industrial-idea-complex topped by the international oligarchs of the WEF. Their latest shitfest love in symposium was all about how the speech of the peasants and the information the peasants (everyone but them, of course are peasants) should be censored. The peasants should in effect be lied to so they would willingly go into the 15 minute cities, and eat the bugs and be controlled conception to grave.
That they said that out in the open, and then expect us to think there’s an organic movement FOR censorship is both hilarious and sad. It’s also part of how they have “grown” since most of them are about 10 years older than I.
This drive to silence the masses is actually a good sign. No, listen to me. When I was younger, the left always pretended it was against the second amendment but pro the first. In fact they wanted to put the first beyond the reach of private citizens wanting to, say, shield their kids (more on that later) in very limited and private circumstances. They were very determined you should be able to say anything, even the patently evil and stupid.
They were right in what they said, (except for usurping parental rights) but not in what they did. Because you see, what they proclaimed they did only because they had full control of the dissemination of information, from fiction to news to the discourse in universities. So complete that nothing they didn’t want said got any traction. It might be allowed, but only in a deformed/denounced shape.
It was safe for them to push for ever more free speech, because they had full control. They shaped what was allowed in the public sphere. And mostly what they were defending was their right to flood the zone with stuff few people wanted.
Now they are trying to fight the first amendment as hard as they fight the second, and it’s a good sign, because it means they lost control. They no longer can keep the information confined and under their aegis. And they’re revealed as the horrendous totalitarian weirdos they’ve always been. They don’t like that. They want the control back. So they’re openly advocating for censorship.
Which means the ideas are horrifying and — as in everything else — we’re going through a horrible time, but — believe it or not — it means things are getting better. This is kind of like when you’re so ill you can’t stand it, but it’s actually a sign your immune system is fighting the infection.
Anyway, I posted that meme on facebook, because I felt like that, but my first comment was…. weird. At first I misunderstood him, then I thought that he was arguing in good faith but touched in the head. At this point, after thinking about it for a day or so, I think he’s arguing in outright bad faith.
This person has been a commenter on my stuff forever, and one of my earlier facebook friends. It is entirely possible he is a leftist or has acquired some major dysfunction in the meantime. I don’t have the time — I’ve barely been online, as you guys know, as we’re trying to clean up/fix things in the aftermath of the flood main water pipe break. (Yes, that was the porch rebuild project. We had to redo it, because it had to be pulled apart to get at the pipes. And though the plumbers put it back so we could walk on it (ish) they were obviously not carpenters, so it had to be redone, properly.)
Anyway, he came in hot and heavy in the aftermath of my posting that to tell me that censorship was appropriate in some cases. After all, no one should be free to post libel or child porn.
I was so out of it (I’m really getting tired of friends dying suddenly and unexpectedly. Y’all stop it, okay?) that at first I understood him to say “giving the children porn.”
So, my answer at first was to tell him that he really should not bring up libel, which is de-facto legal in the US, in the sense that you can be libeled but you can’t do anything about it. (Wikipedia has a highly libelous post involving me. Yeah. You know exactly what it is. We had a car saleswoman ask us about it, after seeing my name and looking it up. That was fun.) I mean, there are rare wins, like the Covington kids, but the libel law in the US has no teeth. You can’t libel someone who is “famous” (“a public personality”) and in this day and age it’s easy to make someone famous BY libeling them.
But theoretically libel is a crime, because it’s not speech as such. It’s speech directed at destroying someone. It is a lie highly targeted to rob someone of their livelihood or life. So, in a way it’s like a widespread Swatting.
Should it be legal? As I said, it is de-facto legal. And it is a curious intersection of tech and reality. It wouldn’t be possible without some concentration of speech control in the hands of a like-minded faction aided and abetted by governmental and quasi-governmental institutions. (Credentialing factor– I mean universities. Which filter who has access to the public megaphone from the news to entertainment to government.) It is in the process of fixing itself, in a way. Because when bad speech can be countered with good speech just as quickly, it becomes irrelevant.
On the other hand, mind you, I’m temperamentally inclined to introducing dueling laws to allow us to duel the rat bastages. Because that would stop them for good.
Anyway, my answer to letting the children see porn was not as coherent — I was very tired, and as I said, I feel like someone hit me on the head with an anvil, just with the spate of bad news — but what I MEANT was essentially that parents’ rights supersede governmental rights and orders, and if the parents decide to keep porn out of kids’ hands, they should be able to. I didn’t mention, obviously, that the schools to the extent they exist and are available (I’m sure federal involvement in the schools is a bad, bad idea) should be under the control of the parents who are responsible for those kids. And in the home the parents should control what kids see and listen to as a matter of course, because children aren’t self-actuated in any meaningful way, being not aware of the perils in the world.
However, I sternly oppose any widespread censorship to “protect the children.” Because children should be protected by parents and guardians. And any laws put in “for the children” amount to trying to restrict the adults in the name of the children. In fact the shitweasels in our legislature are trying to do the bidding of the WEFfers by putting in a law to protect the children from “social media.” The fact that they started this with Facebook, the domain of grandmothers and old farts (like me) tells you it’s bullshit. The fact is they’re terrified of the free-er (but not fully free, mind you) playground that Twittex has become, and really really want us proles to start sharing “disinformation” which is of course not LIES, but a commie-coined word to mean “things we know are true but which our totalitarian bullshitters don’t want people to know.”
Anyway, right after I answered I realized he meant child porn. And was kind of stopped. Because — guys — child porn is evidence of a crime, and therefore the dissemination of it is being an accomplice to a crime. It is not in any way shape or form mere “speech.”
There was a kerfuffle in the oughts about whether we should allow child porn done with rendering programs, and I suppose that will come back again as deep-fake images and video become more sophisticated. And I can’t get into the absolute right of it, because the psychological waters get very deep and almost all research in the last oh, 50? years is more or less bullshit.
If child porn is created without injuring any children and further harming them by disseminating it, we have to consider the question of whether viewing child porn diffuses the urges of those likely to offend in that way, or if in fact it makes them more likely to harm children. I don’t know, can’t know, and it’s literally above my pay grade in more ways than I can count. On gut feeling, though, I’d consider such production/viewing as a very good reason to watch someone like a hawk, because for sane human beings every feeling revolts.
And while we are not in any way supposed to punish pre-crime and while urges aren’t crimes, and many people probably (I don’t know and neither do you) learn to re-orient and control themselves, I’d still say anyone who makes or consumes that vile stuff SHOULD be watched like a hawk.
At any rate, I think the debate subsided because it turned out the people thus inclined want the real thing, not the fakes. And the real thing is ALWAYS evidence of a crime. It’s a crime to produce, and consuming it is evidence of being an accomplice. In the same way it victimizes kids by being disseminated. (There’s a reason the faces of children, victimized by more normal crimes are fuzzed in the news, okay? Including children of criminals when the only photo available is a family photo.)
Anyway, child porn is not in the same realm as “free speech” or “censorship.” It’s in the realm of crime and psychological and physical violence against children.
The reason I decided the commenter isn’t speaking in good faith is his immediately reaching for “child porn” which is a way of saying “if you support free speech you’re a pedophile.” And that’s not arguing in good faith. In fact, it’s bullshit insanity of the type that says “we must stop “disinformation” and force the peasants to eat the bugs.” If his mind has simply been captured, may his chains rest easy on him, but he is not a free man.
His answer was the equivalent of “but there must be limits on the second amendment otherwise my neighbor will buy a nuke.” While there might be such a time, and I and a friend, when we were both younger and stupider seemed to fall into “designing vending machines for nukes” whenever we got a little alcoholized. But in the present day your neighbor isn’t going to buy a nuke, unless your neighbor is Kim Jong Whoa Fat. And frankly your neighbor would probably be safer than some of the totalitarians running with nukes, including the ones in Iran that the Bidentia seems to be sure they should give nukes to.
It is not arguing in good faith. It’s a comment designed to stop all argument or consideration.
I do realize that that we live in an imperfect world, and that our G-d given rights that a free government elected by the people (ah!) is supposed to safeguard and keep, won’t have perfect expression.
HOWEVER in the limits of reality and the world, the rights enshrined in the bill of rights are as absolute as is possible to make them.
Forget taking our guns from our cold dead fingers. We will be screaming our free speech in the fact of the WEFfers to the end of the world and beyond.
Because we’re Americans. And the cure for bad speech is good speech. Not censorship.
According To Hoyt 
“Free Speech for me, no Free Speech for thee”. (Channeling Lefties)
That’s the title of an excellent book by Libertarian author (and Jazz author) Nat Hentoff: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Speech-Me-But-Not-Thee/dp/006019006X
Light drives out darkness. So truth must drive out falsehood, in the fullness of time.
Nuke the censors! There’s little brighter than a nuclear blast.
“An honest man doesn’t fear lies, but liars fear the truth.”
This reminds me of reading the book “Free speech for me, not for thee” when I was in high school, which chronicled various cases of government speech restrictions.
What has struck me on reflecting back on it is that most of the cases discussed involved schools. Which makes sense, since government schools are inherently opposed to freedom of speech. As in, no matter how much the schools give lip service to free speech, the government running the schools means the government decides what people hear.
I saw this back when I was teaching. The simple fact is that there are too many things to learn to all fit in a school day (especially with the one size fits all pace required to include everyone) to teach them all. So someone must make a decision what is even included.
So, let the parents decide. And get the Federales out of the schools. They should be at most state, but really best local.
Unfortunately in Kansas, education is written into the state constitution. So the schools get to hold the taxpayers hostage.
Education should be a local issue. No federal funding for education at any level. Other than the service academies, and I can make an argument for eliminating them. Eliminate the Dept of Education, after all, how did anyone get an education before 1977?
A lot better than after. Fortunately, I served my time and
was paroledgraduated just before Jimmeh Cahtah stuck his dirty fingers in the pie.They’ve wasted 46 years and OVER $2 TRILLION destroying public education in this country. At this point I fear the only solution is sappers. Blow up the foundations of their big fancy building in D.C. (which the American people are rigorously excluded from) and let it burn down, fall over and sink into the swamp. Then build a parking structure where it used to be.
———————————
They’re the Experts! They only sound stupid to you because you’re not as Educated as they are.
It’s hardly Swamp Castle #3. I’d posit rather that it’s a headwater of The Undrainable Swamp itself.
Indeed, having worked in both public and private schools, there is no good reason to have government running schools.
One private school I worked for charged comparable amounts to what public schools get per student (in Utah, where people are always whining about low per student spending) and we managed to have classes about a third the size of my classes at the public school. And I was allowed to teach math in a way that actually worked, as opposed to the public school where they insisted on a really terrible program.
in a story i’ve told a few times around here, Dungeons & Dragons books were banned in my high school.
Y’know, if schools weren’t THE ONLY PLACE that kids are “expected” to be, it wouldn’t much matter that they don’t do free speech.
If they pared down to basics like “how to read” and “how to do math,” instead of being rather expensive and low-quality daycares, it would be like “no having D&D parties in the DMV waiting room.”
I recall one teacher who loved to declare that in school, the students had no rights. Oh, had I known of Tinker v. Des Moines then…
Regarding public schrewls, I’m working up a post about a very troubling teacher-ed training program that was reported on the Legal Insurrection blog this week; basically, training and coaching the students to inform on their peers, and worse yet – their families for bad-think. You know, like being conservative, religious, not going all-out for the principles of DIE. Yes, encourage the students to inform on their families for bad-think.
This sort of program of rewarding kids for tattling on their families has a very, very bad precedent. There was no mention in what was reported on Legal Insurrection, if the students who informed on their families would be rewarded with a red handkerchief, or with snappy little uniforms adorned with political insignia.
The Red Guard / hitlerjugend / Young Pioneers / Bund Deutscher Mädel / Komsomol Stumabteilung is a thing.
They keep using ‘1984’ as a ‘how-to’ manual.
And ‘Animal Farm’ as a guide to good government.
I suspect it will primarily be focused on firearms in the home
Typical “Mott and Bailey” bullcrap con-artist. ca-ca.
“So what you meant to say to me was ‘Blah Blah Blah. No freedom for you serf! Obey your betters!’ because you want freedom to be a dead letter. You spun your bullshit in service of a dictatorship ‘for your own good’ you think you will control.”
based on some years above ground and a couple of depositions anytime someone in a conversation (in person or online) says “So you are saying that …” and then they twist your words or meaning you can be sure they are not acting in good faith …
You have the right to be infected with another pandemic. What are you going to do about it? Sue? Vote? They don’t care.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13089105/US-Chinese-scientists-bird-flu-strains-infectious-Covid.html
“The documents were obtained by the campaign group, The White Coat Waste Project, and shared with DailyMail.
The papers show funding for the avian virus research began in April 2021 and it is slated to continue through March 2026.The specific viruses the researchers will work with include H5NX, H7N9 and H9N2, WCW reported. A 2023 study described H5NX viruses as ‘highly pathogenic’ with the ability to cause neurological complications in humans.”
“
Mostly trying to scare you. They’re not competent at the “science” that’s all.
Well, I guess that’s one way to look at it.
How many bites at that apple should we allow? Because they will NOT stop trying, and as we’ve seen, those scraps of paper we call laws prohibiting that research aren’t worth a tinker’s damn.
Oh, we shouldn’t allow it. But we’re blessed in incompetent enemies.
And even if they can’t get to humans, how much do you want to pay for poultry? They CAN disrupt the hell out of the food supply, even if it’s only by telling the poultry producers and packers “We have to test for this, and then kill the flock if there’s a positive.”
Okay, Steve, I’m not saying it’s not outrageous, I’m saying there’s no good in falling for their scare tactics.
And we have quail. (Thanks to younger DIL.)
It’s murder hornets.
This is a ridiculous distraction to keep your eyes off the real thing happening on the border.
Ken who is evading a ban is correct on this point, nonetheless.
Except you are making a category error.
These aren’t separate problems, just the latest manifestations of the root cause:
“Those laws and Constitution you hold up like fetishes in the hands of a witch doctor? We don’t care, because they don’t matter. We’ll break them at our whim, and dare you to do something about it.”
Same thing with election fraud, and a host of other things.
It is, thank God, a lot harder than those morons think it is. You can’t just fire up the CRISPR, jazz some bird flu into a zombie T-virus, then drop it on Raccoon City. Doesn’t work that way.
Just think. If they hadn’t all LIED, Covid would have been considered a cold.
Again, Phantom, they only have to be right once. Russian roulette never had any attraction for me.
They need to re-open the Nuremberg court over this.
And the gallows.
Well, if you were low on Vitamin D and high on cortisol, it was a lot worse than a cold. (Unless you mean an anime cold, where people get beat to crud by it.)
I did not enjoy having perfectly clear lungs and bronchial tubes, and yet not getting good air. Which was why I wrapped up warm , turned up the heat, applied a heating pad to my chest, and basically induced an artificial high fever until it went away.
But most people did not catch the Coof as badly as all that, and it was just the long recovery, or the induced panic, that was the pain in the butt.
Some people did die from it; but some people die from lots of things, every year. And a lot of the ‘approved’ treatments just made things worse, so people thinking it was just “this year’s bad gunk/cold/flu” would have been a more survivable and safer way to go.
There is not much good I’ll say about the Jacksonville, Florida public school system (Jacksonville…armpit of the State of Florida) but to the best of my memory they didn’t ban books whiIe I was there. Finding Stranger In A Strange Land in the junior high school library sort of proves it.
The Oz books would periodically vanish from the children’s section of the public library, but they did come back. Eventually.
Geographically speaking, Taylor and Wakulla counties looks much more like the armpit of Florida. I’m not saying Jacksonville isn’t a pit, though, as I’ve only ever drive through or around Jacksonville, never actually been there, and certainly never lived there.
“Florida. Americas wang.”
– Homer Simpson
I think the child pron line could fit under the “your rights end where mine begin” argument. The person creating and/or possessing the image(s) have no right to them since it victimizes the subject of the image. Kind of like you have every right to swing your fists about, but that right ends at the point of my nose because assault is a crime.
Also, I’m one of those crazy libertarians that thinks that if you have the knowledge and money to spend you should be able to have your own personal nuke. Setting it off should hold you/your estate liable for any damages.
But that’s not an American argument, and mostly I’ve heard it used by communists. And their nose keeps shoving into your fist.
Clearly, the child cannot consent to make such, because child.
Thus highly evident force and/or fraud was utilized to obtain/make the images.
Thus, smite.
With careful carve-outs. For example, if a teenager takes a picture of his/her naked crotch and sends it to similarly-aged boyfriend/girlfriend, then kid gloves should be involved. That goes double because there’s a good chance that they’re already having sex, in which case the receiving partner has already seen the goods that are being sent.
However, that doesn’t mean that authorities don’t take a close look at the situation, and maybe ask the parents some pointed questions about why their kid (who could be 14 or even younger, depending on circumstances) is in a sexual relationship.
Much like “age of consent” laws often have “Romeo and Juliet” provisions. Ohio, IIRC, had an age of consent of 18, or 14 if there was no more than a 3 year age difference between those involved. (Came up on a radio talk show which is the only reason I knew about it.)
“For example, if a teenager takes a picture of his/her naked crotch and sends it to similarly-aged boyfriend/girlfriend, then kid gloves should be involved.”
Only if they’re covering the hand you use to slap the stupid child upside the head for being stupid.
No one should be sending naked pictures to anyone, regardless of the relationship. You have absolutely no knowledge of exactly who or how many other people have access to the other person’s device.
You have no idea whether the other person shows off pictures like that as a trophy.
You have no idea what the other person would do with your pictures if your relationship goes bad.
Maybe he deletes them, or maybe he keeps them in a folder to rub one out to for the rest of his life, maybe he posts them on the internet. You don’t know.
And if the other person no longer cares for you, you can’t trust that he’ll be decent about it.
I’d argue it’s evidence of child sexual abuse.
Just, in this case, I’m aware that the “sex ed” and general culture is what’s doing THAT sex abuse, since I’m one of the weird kids who no really wasn’t interested and got aaaaallllll the fun of “how dare you not behave like a sex abuse survivor?”
Yeah, there’s that too.
As a part of this, there are topless pictures of me circulating in Portugal. Well, maybe not anymore, because it might not have got converted to digital.
I was nineteen and sunbathing in a balcony that was higher than any other house around. A friend snapped it while I wasn’t looking. When I realized what had happened I made her swear I got the only print and the negative would be destroyed.
Well, her male cousin developed it and…. YEP.
Male Mormons with great racks are likely Quite Rare Indeed in Portugal…
LOL
Whether it should or shouldn’t be done doesn’t change the fact that it’s happened, and continues to happen. Because, after all, telling teenagers that they shouldn’t do something always works so well…
There have reportedly been some instances in which the authorities searched the phone of an 18 year old male, and found nudes “sexted” to him by his 17 year old girlfriend. Maybe he solicited them. Maybe she decided to send them on her own. Maybe he was 17 when she sent them. It doesn’t change the fact that at least in some venues, he’s now open to kiddie porn charges and sex offender status.
That isn’t any kind of argument against what I said.
“Oh, we can’t discipline them because they won’t listen anyway” is the indifferent and carelessly irresponsible attitude that got us “kids sending nudes” in the first place.
If they’re old enough to be mostly rational, you explain to them why it’s bad idea.
Even horny teenagers can be reasoned with.
And if they don’t listen, and it blows up in their faces – because it will, in the form of child pornography charges – well, they can’t say they weren’t warned, and no one can accuse you of “shooting the dog you allowed to be spoiled through indiscipline”.
There’s been a plethora of articles about how the abundance of porn has contributed to the reduction of dating and meaningful relationships; such that women can’t find men worth dating, and the men are perfectly happy sitting in the privacy of their own rooms fapping away after or while viewing porn. No need for them to interact with flesh and blood people.
The question is, can that behavior be extrapolated for those who are child-porn aficionados? If so, then completely AI generated images or hentai for that matter, not actually harming a child, might be beneficial, regardless how the rest of society views it. On the other hand, part of the attraction of child-porn obviously may be related to perception of the ease of control over the child the adult has, just as child-abusers get off on that total control physically. It’s a very difficult area to study, and there’s no question that experimentation in that area is a minefield of ethical and moral problems.
The problem is that I think it would be at best fifty fifty. But since the transgression seems to be the thrill, I suspect it would be ineffective.
If it was just the transgression, I think there would be a more normal distribution of criminal offenses among the inmate populations. I evaluated quite a few pedophiles (previous career). As I recall the vast majority did not have crimes unrelated to the pedophilia.
There were (and probably are) a lot of theories about the cause. But for me it just comes down to “some people are broken in ways that cannot be fixed.”
There is something else going on, I think. I’ve heard that one of the reasons why pedophiles tend to get assaulted by the rest of the prison population is because the pedos won’t shut up about it.
Perhaps things have changed. The ones I ran into were doing their best to stay off the radar.
Or maybe both exist – the ones who won’t shut up, and the ones who try to lay low as much as possible.
I think there’s more than one type.
I only know two former residents of federal prison. But the two I know hated pedophilia with the heat of the sun because they were victims of them and it destroyed their lives but sending them into a spiral of crime and addiction.
There is a reason pedophiles were condemned to death in the old days.
It’s also about relative social status. The only people lower in prison, if I remember right, than pedophiles are spies and criminal cops. Almost always, they have to be put in solitary or special custody because they will be killed by someone at some point.
Some number of cons have been molested as kids.
There is a pecking order in prisons. Part of the game is “pound the lessors”. The other folks near the bottom of the ladder get thumped too.
I forget where I read it, alas, but there was the tale of the car thief who stole a car… and several miles later the un-noticed in back woke up. And so the car thief drove to the nearest police station and turned himself in: “I am car thief. I am NOT a kidnapper.”
“Some number of cons have been molested as kids.”
That was the excuse of every child molester I ever evaluated. They’ve been caught, convicted, and now they have to justify themselves to the state psychologist.
Any studies with this population must be taken with a huge chunk of salt. All the data is self report.
“some number”
Zero is unlikely give the frequency of molestation in the overall population. Other than that….
Mike
There have also been a plethora of articles, and some more direct evidence, that the availability of porn has “coarsened” those so exposed (and maybe our entire culture). That there are 10, 12, 14 year olds who have become “jaded” with ‘normal’ sex and crave ‘the different’, which apparently means more bizarre, extreme and often violent. (Remember when the glimpse of an ankle, or thigh, was enough to fluster you? The young today wont even blink unless it’s some gross extreme behaviour as they’ve literally seen everything else).
Then there is the whole “portrayal of women” – plastic constructs available to be used and abused (in any way males wish, the more abusive the better) and they ‘know’ women want this because … they see it in every porn video they watch. It’s as bad in it’s effect on girls, who let’s be honest probably watch ‘more’ porn than the boys now (just called something else), in indoctrinating them into believing they are nothing but sex “things” – to use ‘themselves’ for attention and profit (and if they don’t do so ‘they’ have a problem, and will be excluded).
The result, women and girls are being driven away from normal relationships because the boys and men don’t seem now to even know what one is. Men and boys avoid ‘the real’ women because they no longer act like ‘people’ any more.
Now consider the effect on someone who has inappropriate “tendencies”. They’ll be exposed to more and more, and more extreme until … they will probably act.
So, in my humble opinion, no, I think porn doesn’t do anything but destroy everyone exposed to it, and puts ‘at risk’ many vulnerable and innocent … of both sexes.
As with all things, it’s not all, or even I suspect the majority, but the effects are now being felt by everybody. It’s just a pity we can’t have ‘normal people badges’ or flags so as to be able to find each other.
Amen to that. The increased difficulty in finding a normal partner/potential spouse due to the non-standard sexuality agenda is one of the things contributing to our low birth rates. the porn issue just makes it worse.
Yuuuuup. This. ALL of this.
“just called something else”
Romance novels
There’s been a plethora of articles about how the abundance of porn has contributed to the reduction of dating and meaningful relationships; such that women can’t find men worth dating, and the men are perfectly happy sitting in the privacy of their own rooms fapping away after or while viewing porn.
Sure, there’s articles on it.
However, the evidence points more towards it damages meaningful relationships, and raises a demand for no-commitment hookups, to the point where a blind date that doesn’t end up making a run for the bases is considered a failure.
That ain’t healthy, and more on point it is exactly what one does not want CP to go into.
Oh, I forgot one angle– issue with decriminalizing “completely AI generated images” is that they’ve already tried that route as a defense.
Basically, if you can’t produce a victim, the CP isn’t evidence of a crime…. at least, that’s what they wanted.
Given that there’s already an issue with the kids in such videos turning up dead, this didn’t go over so well.
There’s also an issue with a large number of women (I’m not sure exactly how many, though I know it’s super common among the minority that use dating apps) that have unrealistic expectations about the kind of guy that they can land. They won’t accept anything but a man who meets their unrealistically high standards (which are divorced both from reality, and their own suitableness as a high-value catch to a man like that). And as a result, some men who do try and poke their head out end up going back to the privacy of their own rooms and porn.
It’s a complicated mess, and I suspect that there are multiple self-feeding loops involved that make the problem even worse.
“six foot plus, six figure plus, six inch plus”
Beastly.
Yup. And that last one is probably also being influenced by porn.
It’s not a woman thing, although women get hit with it more, since the same type of guy is willing to sleep with pretty much anything willing– at least once.
The OK Cupid “study” that is usually offered as the basis is absolutely unsurprising when one considers the behavior of the system involved, so women were working on functional three option setup where 2 removed someone from consideration, 3 was good, and 4 was amazing.
Guys were rating on a five point scale where 1 was blocking and you’d both get a note if the other said “Dang you’re ugly!” with a 1, two was removing from suggestions, three was average, 4 was nice, and 5 was sending them a note that was “hey pretty lady!”
Which is why women were on a three point scale. 😀
Women actually contacted guys who were below average on the 5 point scale, about median if you adjust on the assumption they were rating based off of results rather than objective attractiveness. (“This guy is cute, but he has a dog, and I’m allergic. Don’t show this result. This guy is a Red Sox fan, nope. Ooh, I like the Eagles, this guy used a quote as his bio, that’s an option-“)
Guys, to the immense shock of nobody, mostly contacted the top 20%, no matter how ugly they were. And that’s not counting the automatic “hi, you’re cute” emails.
It was a “study” because it was supposed to be funny, it was a blog post, and the title was “Your looks and your inbox.” Not on OKCupid anymore, but it’s around online.
https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html
Found the original archive!
http://web.archive.org/web/20100324074028/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/11/17/your-looks-and-online-dating/
I’m not basing my comments off of a study. I’m basing it on a female journalist who decided to hop onto an app as a man to show how toxic men were, but was overwhelmed by the number of “Don’t bother contacting me if you’re not…” messages that she saw on the info that women were putting up.0
You realize that’s a woman being catty, right?
Maybe she is, and maybe she isn’t. A large number of men were commenting on this long before she did. She’s notable because she’s a woman who set out to “prove” one thing, and found the opposite.
Women being catty frequently do so by appealing to the audience.
There are entire youtube channels, which provide rather nicely for the ladies who run them, that demonstrate this feature. Some I agree with, some I don’t, some are basically “cute girl being Jordan Peterson with slightly unusual takes.”
More relevantly, found the story, which doesn’t match your memory or the characterization of the issues.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8370535/Woman-creates-fake-Tinder-profile-man-assumes-easy-dates.html
Reads like she was flirting with her friend, honestly, and she really sucks at chatting to make someone interested in dating.
The one I’m referring to is more recent than 2020, probably within the last several months. And one of the things that she mentioned had nothing to do with conversations. It was – as I mentioned above – profiles that basically included, “Don’t contact me if you don’t have all three 6s.” That’s screening even before a guy reaches out to a woman.
Great, now we’ve got a decade. That’s a start.
Zero results coming up, other than the guy selling a book on how apps are a bad way to meet girls, since males out number female profiles by more than two to one, and that’s not filtering for fake profiles.
Ton of results of remixes of the OKCupid blog post and folks assuring eachother that women only date 6-6-6 guys. Well, and a bunch of really bad stats….
Do you have an app name?
Was it a video or print news?
Twitter?
Could you be confusing it with that poor lesbian lady who recently killed herself, and got famous for writing a book about her life as a man?
I found out about it in a video that I watched a few months ago (I don’t ordinarily follow the source, but the title triggered my curiosity). The rest of the video was full of facts and references that didn’t provide the necessary supporting information needed to be useful citations. For instance, it showed one anonymous woman’s usage history in a particular dating app (Tinder, I think), i.e. how many men she responded to, how many dates she reported, and how many one night stands she reported. But since there was no information in the video stating how typical this woman was (or proof of how widespread actions like this might be), I haven’t ever brought it up elsewhere.
The bit I reported here, however, is fairly self-contained. As I said, the female journalist signed onto one of the big dating apps as a guy (probably Tinder again, though I don’t remember for certain), and reported finding a (to her) surprisingly large number of profiles that attempted to exclude all but a tiny minority of men before a guy even attempted to contact the woman in the profile. And this is something that a lot of men who use those apps have apparently also noted. It’s not as if the journalist is the only one saying this.
There have been stories elsewhere indicating that a lot of women don’t realize what the median income is, or how tall the median male height is. So the fact that women are demanding these sorts of things isn’t that much of a surprise.
Frankly, I’m not sure why you’re so dead set on attempting to disprove this.
Frankly, I’m not sure why you’re so dead set on attempting to disprove this.
I’m trying to find enough information to look at it at all. Truth beats the hell out of rumor, even glorified rumor that happens to flatter what someone already thinks.
Because I’ve spent most of my LIFE being one of the people who pays, and pays, and pays for similar “everyone knows” rumors, which vanish into “someone once said in a speech” or “three or four levels of bad data got all reported, badly” when you dig down.
The same places that claim six foot is a ludicrous height to ask for then cite that the average height for men is five foot seven.
…that someone typed that without laughing makes me question their sanity, or maybe what country they’re typing in, but that is what they claim.
Doing the basic step of looking at medical height charts for Americans that are from recent decades would tell them that the median height for American men is 5’10, and the arch visibly goes up between 20 and 40.
If one wants to look at what guys using the apps say? Look at the various sites explaining the “6-6-6” rule, where the absolute loss state has it utterly unfair that the guy didn’t get “to blow his load.”
That’s the baseline of fair, being accepted to a date means no-commitment sex.
Is these folks existing just, at all? No. Is pretending like they’re normal useful to anybody but The Enemy? Also no.
As a datapoint. My husband’s run into a few of these ladies on youtube (And usually winds up fighting EVERYONE in the comments. Is Marine.) Note: Not the undercover lady, but the others. There is a set of “influencer” types, usually black women though sometimes other demographics, that seem to have come out of the ‘You don’t have to put up with a gang-banger north end of a south bound mule who beats you.” end of relationship advice, apparently without understanding where the ‘you deserve better’ in that situation comes from. They take the ‘you deserve better’ and run with it to the insane extreme. They are a problem because they’re setting themselves up as relationship advice, mostly for women from backgrounds so broken that they wouldn’t know a healthy relationship if it bit them. It’s spreading but there’s push back outside of that circle.
They’d probably recognize a healthy relationship that DID bite them faster.
My mom got kicked out of the prayer group, in the 90s, for carefully suggesting to one of the other ladies that going to God with a checklist literally a full page long of what would be acceptable for a second husband, then complaining he didn’t get delivered to her lap, miiiiiight not be reasonable.
The big chunk that folks really don’t want to deal with is that the assumption of “dating means f-ing” is broken, so how DARE the women not “settle” for subpar things in their hookup, completely ignoring that the hook-up itself is a really unhealthy thing.
Which, note, I pointed out right at the start.
Want to be upset about one “unrealistic” expectation, for existing? Miiiiight want to address the directly related, much more common, unreasonable expectation. Even before things like “two to one sex imbalance.”
Funny story.
Went on a date with this one woman, dinner and movie, and something just felt off about her. Was driving back to her home and out of the blue she asks to see my dorm room on base. I’m like, “Huh, this isn’t going according to the playbook. Why is she giving off these desperate vibes?” But I humored here and stopped by the dorm. She made weird ooh and ahh bits about the meager furnishings. Alarm bells are going off in my head.
I reached over to my bookshelf and pulled off the Bible and asked if she wanted to read it with me.
That shut her down so fast it still makes my head spin. Took her home and never went out with her again.
Sometimes you have to wonder what’s behind those kinds of messages He sends you. And where the road not traveled would have led.
Eeeeeeek yes that’s mega bad, hope that she kept thinking of it and got better, REALLY glad you didn’t get hurt.
c4c
American leftists are insane, they were driven insane by their own policy failures and the Cognitive Dissonance of Communism’s failure every time it is tried. They know that everything they stand for is a lie, so they must destroy everything that works in order to hide their failures even more. That is why they must destroy free speech, it keeps pointing out their outright lies and falsehoods. The biggest lie is what is driving them insane, the lie that they are trying to help, not enslave the people. Screw you leftoids, may you burn in the lowest part of hell for an eternity, you deserve no less.
“If you were better people, this would work!”
You know who else said that, right before he shot himself in the head to avoid being captured by the Soviets?
😛
I remember when it was insisted that the first amendment required pornography to be legal and readily available as a bulwark to protect political speech. (Often couched as “The conservative case for…”)
But I don’t remember a single one of those commentators issuing a mea culpa.
Yeah, I saw the idiot with the cp example the other day. If someone jumps straight to cp or calling people Nazis, they don’t have an argument they have “feelz.”
Some people I just don’t bother to engage.
At least not until you can legally do it through a scope. Hint, note the Legally in there. We obey the law, they don’t, their crazy laws we ignore.
At best, they deserve a Reaganesque response, “There you go again, always projecting.”
And here I thought a Reaganesque response was recomissioning battleships with which to blast our enemies.
IIRC that was a reference to the 1980 presidential debates with President Carter.
Though, I think the battleships count too.
“There you go again.”
– RR
Couple of news items, regarding the notion of censorship.
First, the side of people arguing for censorship, who are these guys? Well, here’s an example from today:
“The building hosting a “Canadian” media outlet named OTTAWAZINE according to filings, which is run by international students from China that run paid promotions for the Chinese Embassy and lashed out at Conservative candidates last election, is totally empty.”
Ottawazine’s listed address is an empty building.
Here’s another “news” item from the side arguing for censorship, 15 minute cities and cricket croquettes, also from today:
“If a body can be bequeathed with consent to medical science, why can’t it be left to… feed the hungry?”
Yes, the reason CANNIBALISM is considered -bad- is… wait for it… colonialist racism.
That’s an actual article in New Scientist. Where we’ve also seen arguments in favor of censorship I’m sure, although I can’t be bothered to check because the cannibalism article is all I really need to demonstrate the point.
And finally this, from Canada, the home of industrious beavers frolicking in their ponds and building their picturesque dams:
“The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces the launch of a constitutional challenge in Quebec’s Superior Court against the Ministry of Education. This action is brought on behalf of a teacher who refused to lie to the parents of a 14-year-old student seeking a female-to-male gender transition, as her school administration had ordered her to do.”
The teacher refused to LIE to the kid’s parents, as ORDERED. Okay? And it has taken a Canadian NGO to take up this woman’s case, because the courts won’t protect her right to not be ordered to lie, and arguably to protect a child in her care from fruitloops. Because shut up, peasants.
And finally this beauty, the CBC trying to put words in the mouth of the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition:
“Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre stepped into the debate over trans rights on Wednesday, saying “biological males” should be banned from women’s sports, change rooms and bathrooms.
“Female spaces should be exclusively for females, not for biological males,” Poilievre said in Kitchener, Ont.
The Conservative leader made the comments after being asked if, as prime minister, he would introduce legislation to prevent “transgender women” or “biological men” from participating in female sports or entering female prisons and shelters.
“A lot of the spaces … are provincially and municipally controlled, so it is unclear … what reach federal legislation would have to change them,” Poilievre said.
“But obviously female sports, female change rooms, female bathrooms should be for females, not for biological males,” he added.”
That’s all he said, and it doesn’t seem particularly surprising or odd, but there’s a whole CBC article telling you that it the worst thing since Hitler. Reminder, the CBC is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and is 100% government funded. Meaning that the official government news organ is telling you the leader of a Canadian political party is worse than Hitler.
Four apparently random news stories from the interwebz which are very clearly not random. If you go to Drudge Report there’s a whole Trump-is-Doomed section. Not just a story but a theme anthology. And how interesting that it is on Drudge, right?
So really, if you feel like you’re in the middle of a 24/7/365 psy-op in the style of 1984’s Ministry of Peace, you have grasped what’s actually going on. Yes, they’re f-ing with you.
However in -good- news, Rob Reiner’s latest Big New Fabulous Movie crashed and burned like the freakin’ Hindenburg.
“Like all Rob Reiner movies, Rob Reiner’s documentary, God & Country: The Rise Of Christian Nationalism, didn’t just tank at the box office, it was humiliated.
In 85 theaters, Reiner’s bigoted attack on Christians who dared to vote for Donald Trump earned just $38,415 over four days. As one website put it, that’s “averaging $451 [per] theater over four days, which is incredibly low.” If you assume it only had “one showing each day (and likely it had several), it brought in around 112 dollars a day, or ten people a day spread across however many showings.”
Paying customers shunned the movie like leprosy. Ten people a day is quite the rebuke.
More evidence that the public is becoming hardened to the psy-op onslaught since 2020. That’s good news.
Is it really a surprise that the Green Leap Forward crowd’s totalitarian vision includes not only 1984 and Animal Farm but also Soylent Green?
Soylent Green, Aztec rituals, and Carib meal planning. Has anyone checked to see if the Green Leap Forward is run by wendigos? Because that would explain a lot….
As I put in yesterday’s not-a-post, Sarah predicted this years ago. Sometimes it sucks to be right. 😮
My “nuanced view” is that people who advocate for this “nuanced view of cannibalism”, need to be investigated to see whether their freezers are full of long pork, and then shot and their bodies fed to dogs. On general principle.
There is no shortage of food so dire anywhere in the western world that anyone should be even thinking of feeding human flesh to the poor.
It only needed to include the phrase ‘A Modest Proposal’ to make it perfect… 😮
“but what I MEANT was essentially that parents’ rights supersede governmental rights and orders…”
Ah, no. No, they don’t. Not in Canada. Fathers particularly have NO rights whatsoever, by precedent. Mothers do not either, if the school board thinks Mom might be a Xtian.
By contrast those Religion of Peace types still have parental rights, sort of, but only after a thousand of them show up to chant in front of the school. Individually, not so much.
But they should, under any view of natural law. And there’s another argument: why should a woman go through the difficulties and risks of pregnancy and childbirth if her offspring will not be her progeny in family and culture as well as in chromosome?
Hey everyone. The farmer’s protest continues in Europe with the Spanish Socialist government having their police beat the protestors with clubs. Typical.
Evidently some Portuguese person rode a bicycle on TV, which has caused all the leftists in Portugal to flip out. I have no idea what that about, but anything that makes lefties flip out is good to me. Evidently he’s the head of the Chega party, which is described as AfD, but in Portugal.
The collapse in China continues. Short selling, bulk selling, and now trading at the open and close are suspended. The CCP plunge protection “national team”has been intervening almost daily. isn’t working, nothing is working. Further, the CCP is consolidating all tech research directly under CCP control. Stick a fork in China, they’re done. Unrest is spreading as just about everyone who isn’t well connected with the CCP has lost everything since stocks are dead, real estate is dead, and all the local banks and investment houses are failing. The local gendarmes have been called out to deal with the spreading unrest and the army can’t be far behind. A spark could easily cause a conflagration. Did I mention there’s no social welfare in the workers paradise and no children, thus, no savings means ending up on the street? Things are bad.
Closer to home, NYC is giving $10,000 gift cards to illegals and Epstein didn’t kill himself.
Not just NYC. Other blue cities are doing similar things, though I haven’t heard of anything like that going on in California right now. But then again, we’ve already got a homeless crisis that doesn’t involve illegals, so…
As for China…
I really hope Xi doesn’t try something involving one of his neighbors (which might or might not be Taipei) in an attempt to maintain his authority. The Philippines is currently getting a US build up of forces, so it’s probably considered a bad target in Beijing. But Vietnam is a bit isolated at the moment (Russia is it’s traditional guardian post-reunification, and it’s a bit distant and pre-occupied right now), and China has been having the same maritime disagreements with Vietnam that it’s been having with the Philippines.
I sometimes feel like the world is quickly approaching a tight-rope, with massive wars breaking out all over if not handled properly. And, of course, the idiots in the current Federal Administration (including much of the bureaucracy) are completely incapable of even conceiving what’s about to happen, let alone responding to it in anything resembling a constructive fashion.
Xi is already encroaching on India.
Yeah, but it’s small scale, over a long-disputed and small border area, and according to reports not going well.
Xi would have to be smoking very bad crack to take another try at Vietnam. The got their asses handed to them the prior try, and the loss of face will span a millennium.
No way is Xi stupid enough to stick his wang in that hornets nest again.
Taiwan is about the only neighbor small enough and unproven enough for a try, unless they decide to try a walkover in Russian Siberia. Putin may have invited such an adventure by squandering 3000 first-line tanks in Ukraine, for very, very little gain. And the Russian supply line to Siberia is vastly more narrow and far, far longer than to Ukraine.
The question is, are the Chinese in similar Potemkin shape? The lack of border skirmishes with Russia speak to either “we are equally FUBAR, or worse” or “lull them into a sense of security, then throw the thunderbolt.”
Seems like Russia is the only significant opposing neighbor China has not been poking lately. Thus I suspect Russia is their main goal and upcoming event.
The Reader thinks that Xi and the PLA might try Vietnam again. The last one was 45 years ago and Vietnam was still well armed and experienced from the Vietnam war. The Soviet Union supported Vietnam with more material before and during the conflict, and since China had no navy to speak of at the time, it wasn’t willing to attempt to interdict the resupply.
Fast forward 45 years. The Chinese, at least on paper, have a fairly potent military and a significant navy. Vietnam no longer does. A successful invasion of Vietnam would give the Chinese a much stronger hold in the South China Sea making it easier to protect their sea lanes to the Middle East, eliminate any issue with who owns the oil in the South China Sea by taking it, and eliminate a economic rival that is becoming one of the go to countries for companies leaving China. The Chinese navy is now strong enough to support amphibious operations against the Vietnamese coast, which would give them practice for Taiwan later (Taiwan is an extraordinary challenge for a military that has never conducted a major amphibious operation). Russia is not in any position to aid Vietnam anymore, and what other country is in a position to help. The West won’t – no billions of dollars for munitions to Vietnam and besides we couldn’t get it there over Chinese opposition. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will make sad noises and hopefully continue their military expansion so they aren’t next. The last wild card in going after Taiwan is does it have nukes? Pretty sure this is not an issue with Vietnam. All this is not to say that the short victorious war won’t be. But on paper Vietnam makes a more likely first target.
Japan’s been talking to Vietnam about a defensive agreement, though I don’t know that anything has happened beyond Japan supplying some military equipment.
The big problem for Vietnam is that it’s the only East or Southeast Asian nation that has disputes with China and that shares a land border. If Vietnam signs an agreement, and invokes it to defend against a Chinese attack, then great. But if Vietnam signs an agreement, and Taiwan invokes it to defend against an invasion, Vietnam is stuck being the only country in the agreement that risks a land invasion in retaliation.
Same Vietnamese. Some rifles and ammo, a sack of rice, some outside help, and they will keep China busy losing face.
We had all that stuff China now has. Did it help us? no. Vietnam won’t quit, so they eventually win.
China ain’t that dumb.
We’ll see. Ukraine has shown that modern warfare uses material at a fearsome rate. The Reader thinks Vietnam would run out of stuff without the possibility of resupply.
Russia lost becasue the Ukies wont quit. They blew their effort to decapitate the Ukies, and now the survivors are far, far too motivated just shrug and give up. If russia wants to keep feedign the grinder more meat, the Ukies will cheerfully keep turining the crank.
The -only- way Russia can salvage something resembling a justifiction is if someone -else- forces the Ukies to quit/ceasefire/negotiate.
All that horseshit about “Russia can’t lose” “inevitable” is just that – horseshit from Russian ops. If Russia could win by force of arms they wouldn’t be into year 3 of a stalemate versus what should have been 3-6 weeks to vanquish. At the rate the Russians are winning, there won’t -be- a Russia in 5 years.
Since it’s a maritime dispute that we’re talking about, the bulk of any combat would likely be naval. China has a big edge there, as it doesn’t need to invade Vietnam. Vietnam’s options would be limited in that situation. Invading China would be risky, and not likely all that useful. And Vietnam’s navy would have trouble standing up to the PLAN.
Or will the Party’s, “Oh, for the good old days of Mao,” faction declare themselves justified and try to return to a “pure,” communism?
Worst case, they try a Gotterdamerung, and decide if they’re going down, we’re go with them.
(What would happen if LA, say, was nuked and nobody took responsibility for it?)
Xi appears to already be trying to revert back to “good old days of Mao”. It’s one of the reasons why some of the older folks living in China have been getting very concerned about what’s been going on for the last few years.
Hopefully it would be DC, instead.
Too easy to track ICBMs or bombers.
And the isotope signature of any nuke gives away the reactor(s) that birthed its fissiles. We have all sorts of fallout samples form prior Chinese tests, so we know their fingerprints.
Now, if the warheads were from completely clandestine sources, and of completely novel designs, and delivered by tramp freighter, it is somewhat harder to identify the perp.
But really, would that matter? We could just as easily gut the likely players simultaneously with two or three SSBNs each, and a few more warheads BOne tossed at Iran because FU.
So trying to be clever with nukes is just going to make more corpses.
Ah, but would we?
You’d get the, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost!” types, and the, “We deserve this, it’s not their fault,” types. Plus the, “We are not Christians, but we will prove our virtue by not retaliating,” types, and the, “No, no, retaliating will bring nuclear winter! REEEEE!” types. And, oh yes, the, “All the evidence points to this coming from (whoever), but before taking such a serious step as nuclear retaliation we must be 100% certain we have the actual perpetrators,” types.Throw that mix in with the rest of the population and an Administration that routinely does the wrong thing, and God only knows what we’d get.
I’d hope for something like a nationwide snarl of fury followed by….an appropriate response.
Any administration that failed to turn the keys after an American city went to ash, would not last out the week.
If Bush 43 had launched on Afghanistan, and perhaps some related nincompoops, folks would ahve added him to Rushmore.
Americans have an “insane anger” setting. Push the lever far enough, and we plan to defoliate and depopulate Japan, for example. (First proposed in broad terms by Halsey, December 1941)
I would certainly hope so. Larry Correia’s “on/off,” switch comes right to mind.
Chega means Enough.
IOW “basta”?
yep. Same in Portuguese too. The words are synonyms.
My paternal grandmother’s favorite word (she was Corsican) when the cousins got to be a bit too much.
Simon of HMS Amethyst looks on these wannabee commie rats with disdain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_(cat)
Even Simon the war hero cat was no match for British National Health. 😦
Musket? To hell with that! Fetch all the muskets, and the cannons too. And grapeshot. Lots of grapeshot.
We are currently in the middle of a nation-wide cell phone outage situation. My best guess is that it’s a targeted denial of service attack by enemies of the United States. Whether those enemies are domestic rogue government operatives attempting the fear and censorship route, or external ones setting up for other types of attack remains to be seen.
Keep your eyes and ears open, and your weapons at hand.
Yeah, noticed mine was not in service earlier. Heard the Maintenance folks complaining about it as well, as most of the work comes via the phones.
Weren’t we supposed to be having solar flare problems in the last few months?
Ther have been several flares; but none currently impacting the planet.
probably not a nation state actor. More likely an epic “whoops”. Too much else remains active and useful.
It appears to be limited to the ATT cell network and providers that use it. And it is not comprehensive or particularly geographically localized. The Reader’s ATT phone was fine, his better half’s, not so much.
There are several companies reporting cyber attacks at this time also. Don’t know if that’s higher than normal or not; but being notified of them from other service providers is not normal.
Opportunistic or coordinated?
Internet is inherently chaotic. I would expect a real attack to be more coordinated and hit multiple different things. Cellular, pipeline, GPS for example, preferably around some upheaval or disaster. Operation Kitchen Sink or hyena pack nut-whacks a lion until it leaves.
Verizon (ours) and T-Mobile (mom’s), locally, are working. OTOH called mom at her home, from our home, and systems could be just as easily using our WiFi’s. Do have two bars (low) showing on my phone. But two bars isn’t unusual either.
My daughter’s phone was frelled until about 10 AM this morning – but at least she could send text messages. Mine was OK. I’m wondering if the ATT outage was deliberate, or incompetence. Or deliberate compounded by incompetence.
So many people argue by arguing about slippery slopes and then going to the extremes, ie. should your neighbor be allowed to have a nuke. In reality, life is lived on that slippery slope. We are always somewhere between the extremes. Now, it’s true that in recent life, the ratchet has worked in only one direction on that slope. But with effort we can get back to a more comfortable position on it.
Is it single-person portable?
Capable of selective targeting of a single individual?
Recognizably “arms”?
Nukes and frags dont fit that terribly well. Blades, blunts, rifles, pistols, shotguns, machineguns, even some grenade/rocket launchers can hit minute-of-foe (assuming solid slug, not frag)
I don’t bother with that. I usually insist the person “worried” (they never really are) about nukes to amend the COTUS to exclude them. Mostly because they take any “oh no, we shouldn’t have nukes” as an excuse for limitations upon much lighter weaponry, like the Dreaded AR-15 and such.
Besides my Type A2 Far Trader might need protection in the Outlands. 😉
Nothing is absolute. No, the irony does not escape me.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
They can be tricky as well…
Darth Lucas