NASA Warns Two Asteroids Could Cause Atmospheric Explosion Over Earth This Week https://www.zerohedge.com/health/nasa-warns-two-asteroids-could-cause-atmosp... https://themindunleashed.com/2020/03/nasa-warns-two-asteroids-could-cause-at... 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... [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.