Read on Twitter
Right now we exist in an overly permissive environment, a hyper-feminized environment, and this degrades our ability to discern right from wrong. Thatâs because women don't respect laws, they only respect law-givers; people are real to women and abstractions are not
Itâs hardwired into our species, itâs in the hardware layer and youâll never erase it: âprotect the women, because women are worth more than men" (they really are!) and the rules will never apply to them. https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1038682082032136192
Women canât live by a moral law any more than men can grow a womb and gestate a fetus, because when it comes down to it, the law will look the other way. They understand forgiveness and mercy, but sin eludes them
Forgiveness divorced from a theory of sin is a formula for sociopathy: anything goes, as long as you do it nicely and gently, and donât hurt anyoneâs feelings.
That's why women have no business making laws, because formal, rule-based power is antithetical to female power, which is soft power. People who are congenitally exempt from laws ought not to have a say in making them.
In the feminine world, Good is when people esteem you, evil is people who don't. That's why I say women can understand the law-giver, but not the law. But in the masculine world, which is invisible now, the lawgiver has to live up to the law, because he's beneath it
Two possible orientations towards sin: sin as transgression against others, or sin as transgression against yourself. The latter is the masculine way; sin as a tangible record of the imperfections in your soul.
So we try to recover masculinity from the ascendant feminine, but we tend to overcorrect, and when we do that we build something that's every bit as flimsy and two-dimensional as the thing we're trying to escape
If the over-feminine fails to enforce boundaries, leaving the soul disordered, then the over-masculine creates too-rigid boundaries, leaving the soul stifled.
In our endless musical chairs of ideology, we declare some act a mortal sin, and then become insufferable scolds https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1195032867312529408
No one is more guilty of this than a new convert to an old religion. The zeal of the recently devout, having found living water after decades of thirst, may cause him to drown himself
Authority is better than depravity, but this is still a depraved way to live. And this type of masculinity, which is so ready to condemn you for the slightest transgression, cannot sustain itself, because it fails to think holistically
So what I want to do today is think about a theory of sin. And the reason I say "theory" is that a strict moral code is, itself, a kind of a sin: every moral scenario is idiosyncratic, and all rules have exceptions https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1193721124711829504
A successful moral instition has to thread the needle between moral anarchy (femininity) and moral tyranny (masculinity).
The moral order is a complex system, just like the human body, just like a large-scale engineering project, just like a corporation or a government. https://web.mit.edu/2.75/resources/random/How%20Complex%20Systems%20Fail.pdf
Complexity can seem perverse or redundant, but it evolves organically. When operating in hostile conditions, you need fallbacks and fail-overs. Over time, processes trade away simplicity to gain robusticity https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/08/19/maybe-your-zoloft-stopped-working-because-a-liver-fluke-tried-to-turn-your-nth-great-grandmother-into-a-zombie/
In a complex system, partial failure is normative; your body can tolerate small health problems; a business can be profitable with some problem employees or pathological processes. The hallmark of a complex system is ability to operate successfully in a partially degraded state
Often we don't notice failure until it becomes a catastrophe. And when that happens, we take whatever failure we observe at the time of the catastrophe, and we blame that, and we develop a hardened or tyrannical attitude towards that failure specifically
The hazard of the masculine/tyrannical model is that it routinely mistakes fault tolerance for moral sanction. You try to live by a code, but inevitably you make a mistake. Unfortunately, God doesnât zap you for it
This is bad because each time you âget away withâ a transgression against a moral principle, your faith in the principle is weakened. If there are too many safety nets, this creates a moral illusion: that sin does not exist
We have social antibodies to protect us against tyranny, but we have nothing to protect us against permissiveness. We mistake all authority for tyranny, but we arenât wise enough to instinctively mistrust freedom https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1105455388508319744
You will often find that the damage caused by a single mistake is not even visible. Many errors are latent and their severity only becomes clear at the moment of crisis
Even so, single sins donât matter as much as trends, which is a way of saying habitual sins. Zero tolerance is simple to implement but in practice itâs unsustainably brittle.
The same is true of civilizations as individuals: one bad law/idea/institution isnât what sinks us. A catastrophe requires many failures in concert
I want you to understand both sin and civic decay holistically, as points of failure in robust and complex systems. This will enable you to practice justice and forgiveness in simultaneity. This will allow you to feel pessimism without fatalism
More importantly this will prevent you from mistaking fault tolerance for moral anarchy. If traditions are so important, why can we peel them away one by one without a collapse? Now you know the answer https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1100426925657354242
In your efforts to build theories of masculine virtue, you donât consider graceful degradation in the face of failure. âDonât failâ is the contingency plan of an idiot. When you do this, you invite much-deserved ridicule
The liberals that you hate will watch you fail to implement your brittle morality and gloat âsee? promiscuity and profligacy are Goodâ. These types are common; first they learn a few sympathetic signals and then undermine you with âreasonableâ positions
The only sin under liberalism is having a moral code, (the only sin is being a man) and it makes the same rotten argument over and over: âyou sinned and nothing bad happened, right? Your moral code is the problem!â
