Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
11d ago
Yes, he gets divorced.
This is not what actually happens to any man (or the vast majority of men- I question whether it's even a statistically significant number of men) who get divorced.
Spousal support is rare but not non-existent
You mean "pretty rare"? I.e., exactly what I said in the post you are replying to but framing it as a rebuttal?
but child support is very high and doesn't have to be spent on the children. If his income goes up he has to pay more; if it goes down he still has to pay the same.
"Pretty high" is subjective and depends entirely on how much obligation you think a parent has to provide for their offspring. No, there isn't an itemized accounting for every dollar of child support because household expenses are too fungible, but child support is calculated based on the expected expenses of a child and the income of the parents.
Unsurprisingly, the non custodial parent often thinks any amount is too high. Child support can be adjusted up or down. A judge has to approve increasing it, it doesn't happen automatically if income goes up. And it can be decreased too based on life circumstances , though judges tend to take a dim view of the tactic of taking a lower paying job to decrease child support.
Which is irrelevant, as they were still demanded to have been paying it. And if they get caught, they have their wages garnished down to subsistence or less, they lose their driver's licenses, professional licenses, go to jail for contempt for indefinite periods, etc.
It's relevant when you are claiming child support as an injustice, which it is not. In any case, even the most onerous child support does not reach the level of "taking most of his assets and future earnings."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
11d ago
It isn't, and I propose a moratorium on this type of argumentation.
If you think my post broke any rules you are free to report it, and I will as usual let another mod adjudicate it. But no, we will not be declaring a moratorium on "types of argumentation" someone dislikes. For example, a type of argumentation I dislike is the "Nuh uh" (e.g. "It isn't").
Note how the poster actually references how societies gave concrete examples of why their strictures were necessary,
"Societies" did no such thing. The poster gave examples of why he thinks such strictures evolved. Some of which I don't even disagree with. (Speaking of not even reading the post you're replying to.)
Do you actually know anything about the circumstances under which a man can "lose most of his assets and future income" in a divorce? It is not common. In fact alimony is pretty rare nowadays (and almost never close to "most" of his assets and future income), child support is to support the children, and the number of men paying "unreasonable" child support (however you define that) is exceeded by the number of men not actually paying their child support. The worse case scenario you will usually see is an equal distribution state where a spouse can claim 50% of marital assets, even those he or she didn't bring into the marriage. (This can and sometimes is the man who benefits, though usually it's the woman.) And not all states do a 50/50 split like that.
You guys seriously need to update your notions of how divorce works from the 1960s, or the 19th century.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
11d ago
Every society everywhere on Earth for all history up to the 20th century exerted sufficient intrasocietal controls on male avarice and female caprice or else it collapsed.
You know, I see this argument quite often: "Every society ever did things in the traditional (read: my preferred) way, because the Ancient Wisdom of Our Ancestors told us this was how things should be. Societies that failed to do this collapsed!"
Can you actually point to any societies that collapsed as a result of, say, not exerting "sufficient intrasocietal controls on male avarice and female caprice"?
Most "collapsing societies" either did so over a long period of stagnation (Rome, several Chinese dynasties, the Soviet Union) or they did so very abruptly as a result of war or invasion. I can't think of any that did so because they were too libertine and failed to control their menfolk and womenfolk.
This is a just so story.
Your other arguments, about "deep biotruths," are likewise just so stories. Now it is possible (and likely, to my mind) that our current social mores are detrimental to human happiness, that the much-discussed imbalance in sexual relationships in the modern world is harmful to society and putting additional stresses on it (though if we do "collapse," I maintain that "women being whores and alpha-widows and a few chads forcing other men into inceldom" will be like reason #57 on the list), and you can certainly make a good argument that, as you say, "sex doesn't mean anything, it can be just for fun" is not true and not a good principle to encourage.
But whenever I see someone pull out the "Societies collapse if they don't control their females!" argument, I never see any actual evidence of this, just vague handwaving (and the waving is never in the direction of actual societies that do "control" their females - I mean, most Muslim societies are not collapsing right now, but they are not exactly what I'd consider a healthy model in any way, least of all in their sexual relations). Reminds me very much of KulakRevolt's current schtick where he argues that the deep wisdom of his ancestors tells him that worshipping Odin was the best way to ensure the survival of his race and Christianity is a destructive pussification cult. It's entertaining to read, but does anyone not just looking for a reason to dump on Christians (and pussy concepts like mercy and forgiveness and coexistence) actually take it seriously or think it's based on research or even actual inductive reasoning? So it is with arguments about how the Sexual Revolution was a revolt against "deep biotruth" and/or the ancient knowledge of our ancestors (who believed in humors, nature gods, ghosts, aether, a four or five element model of the universe, and so on-this is not a flippant reference to superstition, but pointing out that they made up just so stories to justify their own preferences and to explain things they didn't actually have the ability to investigate or test).
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
12d ago
Agreed, but I'd also say, unless you are having some other severe marital dysfunction going on, if your wife is saying no all the time, wouldn't you want to... have a conversation about this? Figure out what's going on? As opposed to just "asserting your rights."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
12d ago
DreadJimming is just as destructive when women do it.
Yes, but I disagree with his framing (and yours) that women are just tee-hee frivorce-raping hapless men with the power of the state.
It's harder than MRAs would have you believe for a wife to just casually strip-mine an ex, even with no-fault divorce.
If you want to restore a stable equilibrium between the sexes, it's not by listening to people who, frankly, hate the other sex.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
12d ago
I agree that a dead bedroom is a problem, and no one should be expected to live with that. But the "sex is an obligation and marital rape doesn't exist" guys don't seem to acknowledge a wife's right to say no ever.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
12d ago
That was part of the religious rules, yes. Before the modern concept of martial "rape", a man was entitled to take his marital rights from his wife. Consent didn't enter into it; she gave consent when she agreed to marry him, and such was irrevocable.
Every time you DreadJimmers bring this up, I wonder what your model of a marital relationship is like. It's obviously not one where you and your wife actually love one another. So if your wife is not in the mood, or she's injured or sick, or you've just had a raging fight, or you're drunk and stinking and gross her out, you believe in the Good Old Days she'd just have to spread 'em anyway, no recourse, and if she resists, you could beat her until she stops resisting, and that is the past you want to return to?
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
15d ago
It makes a difference if you want to send them somewhere out of the way. Though if you're saying you think his actual preferred solution is in fact extermination, well, maybe it is. He kind of denies it but not really, so we're just speculating.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
Would you even believe him if he threw up his hands, said "fine, I don't want to kill the Jews"?
Sure, but I'd still ask "Okay, then what do you want to do about them?"
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
I'm not asking you to denounce anything. I'm honestly curious to know what you actually want to do about the Jews, and I am also annoyed that you keep dancing around it and then denying that you are hiding the ball.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
It's about as close as you can get, and still, no.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
No, it isn't. Iran's political platform is explicitly and publicly stated by their political leadership and their supporters. We have some hawks who will not miss a chance for an opportunistic war. You are constructing a false equivalency. Iran and the US are not the same in their terminal goals towards one another.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
Isn't one of America's political platforms to go to war with Iran?
Can you point to the platform of any party or politician that says "Go to war with Iran"?
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
Yes, everybody here does know my views because I don't hide them. The accusation that I secretly want all the Jews killed just because I give cultural criticism towards Jews in a similar nature as Jews like Ignatiev constantly levy against whites is simply your attempt to enforce a social consensus making any criticism of Jews taboo.
But you do hide your views. For example, once again you are carefully tap dancing around the question of whether you do in fact want all the Jews killed.
No one is "yelling hysterically" - we are, rather, noticing, you might say.
Now if I pinned you down and sat on your chest, I am guessing (but this is only a guess ) that your actual preferred solution would be something like disenfranchising Jews, denying them the right to vote or own property in non-Jewish lands, and shipping them all off to Madagascar or somewhere where "Jewish lands" could constitute an impoverished third world incapable of affecting anyone else. So maybe not literally exterminating the Jewish race, just treating them like an invasive species that must be banished elsewhere.
Am I warm?
But you won't even concede that much openly because, you know, it doesn't sound a lot better than just being an outright exterminationist. One way or another, your solution amounts to "Jews cannot coexist with us or be given rights." That sounds pretty bad to the, well, non-Neo Nazi ear, so you waffle on with lots of words about "enforced consensus" and how you don't hide the views you won't admit to. And so you will continue to complain when I point out your intrinsic unwillingness to stop hiding your power level, and I will continue to point out your intrinsic unwillingness to stop hiding your power level.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
The notion I hide my power level is absurd. I'm very open that I view the dynamic between Jews and White Gentiles to be a very profound long-standing cultural and political conflict.
You don't hide that. You hide your final solution. You talk and talk about how "Jews are a threat." Okay, what should we do about this threat? (SS posts more random stuff about how some Jew did something, see how threatening they are, and look! Israel!) How do you want to acknowledge and engage this threat?
I don't think the USG wants to kill all the Iranians even though the USG considers them to be a threat.
Gentiles are not at war with Jews. Neither are a nation. If by analogy you think we should be bombing the Jews' infrastructure to deprive them of offensive capabilities, so to speak, how would you propose to do that?
I wouldn't even say what Ignatiev says about Jews. I don't call for the end of Jewish identity but the renaissance of a White identity.
Cool, I am a white person with Russian, German Jewish, Irish, Scottish, English, and Norwegian ancestry and (according to DNA testing, much to my surprise) about 20% random North African, Southwest Asian, and Turkish admixture. How should I identify? Am I Jew because of my Jew blood, even though my entire family is physically and culturally WASP? Do I get to count as white? Which side should I take in the wars to come?
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
Yes, if Israel just let its neighbors invade them and did not respond to Iran's funding of Hezballah, Hamas, and the Houthis, surely Iran would realize that peaceful coexistence with Jews is the way forward.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
Do you think Ignatiev's ideology is that "all white people are awful?" I don't think that's his ideology. I think he's hostile to White Identity.
Yes, that is exactly what I said.
It's so telling that you are so charitable to Ignatiev when I have never spoken rhetoric nearly as inflammatory as Ignatiev in his statements on the White race.
I think Ignatiev distinguishes between white identity and the white race. Whether you or I find that distinction meaningful is irrelevant to understanding what his meaning is. Lots of non-Jewish white people in the woke movement say exactly the same thing. I have, in fact, heard some white people unironically say the white race should be allowed to go extinct (and a few loons even suggesting more direct and immediate measures), but they are pretty far out on the fringes and not what most of these people mean.
But you still interpret his philosophy openly calling for the end of the white race with so much more charity than my cultural criticism of Jewish behavior in American society.
I'm "charitable" in the sense we are supposed to be charitable to views we disagree with here on the Motte, which means not straw manning, eliding context, or characterizing someone as saying something they didn't say. I don't think Ignatiev is calling for the end of the white race, in the sense that white people will no longer exist. And I think you know this and you are being dishonest in claiming you believe that's what he's saying.
When it comes to Jews, it's not possible to simply oppose them politically and culturally. You have to be an exterminationist if you oppose Jews politically.
If all you said was "Jews have disproportionate power in politics," I wouldn't disagree with you factually, though I'd still want to know what specific remedies you advocate and why you think it is specifically a problem. But come now, SS, you tactically hide your power level but your agenda is not merely JAQing about why so many Jews.
If you are constantly talking about how one particular ethnic group is a threat, how their values are hostile to ours, and how almost every member of that group is driven to behave in a certain fashion, yes, it leads me to strongly suspect that your actual agenda is exterminationist, because if you really believe all the things you say about Jews, it would be irrational not to be.
If you want us to believe that Jews are parasites undermining our civilization and we cannot peacefully coexist with them, but you don't want them dead, you just want to... you know, raise awareness, well, you're either treating your audience like chumps or you're unwilling to follow your own logic to its logical conclusion, and I don't believe for a second it's the latter.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
Okay, sure. This conversation is still very strange to me, it's like reddit-tier grasp of nuance. I am not defending the statements, just saying he said A, not B. "Oh, so you're saying A is fine!" No, that is not what I said.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
I forgot BigLoom's comment was filtered, so you aren't the only one who thought I was modding BurdensomeCount. I have fixed it.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
17d ago
... I'm not even sure who this is directed at, but since you just came off a ban for this kind of thing, now you're banned for another three days. Knock it off.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
17d ago
Sometimes whichever mod approves his first few posts doesn't immediately spot the pattern. That said, you only see the ones that do get through.
That was an impressive screed, but you haven't connected a single thing to "male avarice" and female emancipation. And you're doing exactly what you claimed you aren't, telling a just so story about how Christianity is the only ideology that somehow avoids the failure mode of every other civilization.
Are we in the End Times? I've been hearing that in one form or another since I was a kid. A pity that we (or at least I) am too old to see it through or I would put up money on you being wrong.
More options
Context Copy link