BurdensomeCount
—Your em dash is showing...
The neighborhood of Hampstead is just at present exercised with a series of events which seem to run on lines parallel to those of what was known to the writers of headlines and "The Kensington Horror," or "The Stabbing Woman," or "The Woman in Black." During the past two or three days several cases have occurred of young children straying from home or neglecting to return from their playing on the Heath. In all these cases the children were too young to give any properly intelligible account of themselves, but the consensus of their excuses is that they had been with a "bloofer lady." It has always been late in the evening when they have been missed, and on two occasions the children have not been found until early in the following morning. It is generally supposed in the neighborhood that, as the first child missed gave as his reason for being away that a "bloofer lady" had asked him to come for a walk, the others had picked up the phrase and used it as occasion served. This is the more natural as the favorite game of the little ones at present is luring each other away by wiles. A correspondent writes us that to see some of the tiny tots pretending to be the"bloofer lady" is supremely funny. Some of our caricaturists might, he says, take a lesson in the irony of grotesque by comparing the reality and the picture. It is only in accordance with general principles of human nature that the "bloofer lady" should be the popular role at these al fresco performances.
User ID: 628
Sure, I agree it is voluntary, doesn't mean the migrants are doing something bad if they try and mitigate the impact of the culture shift on themselves, or that they should not come if they aren't happy with the culture shift.
Eating pasta at a certain restaurant is completely voluntary, but if their pasta comes with rocket on top and you really really hate it then you can freely move it to the side or onto a different plate. You're not a bad person for not accepting the rocket on your pasta and taking steps to get rid of it vs not even visiting the restaurant, maybe the rest of the meal is really good and you like it very much.
Same with migration, migrants are not and should not be expected to accept literally every cultural thing about their new host country and should be completely free to take steps making their experience more pleasant for them, it's no different to removing the rocket from your meal. We would scoff at anyone who said "If you don't like the rocket then don't eat at this restaurant, if you continue coming here you should be expected to consume everything on the pasta", we should do the same for people who make the analogous argument for immigration.
If you want a top tier electric car these days, get a BYD, not a Tesla. Tesla only has the best self driving these days and if that's not important to you or you don't think regulations will permit it in your jurisdiction any time soon there's no reason to go Tesla anymore. It has nothing to do with virtue signalling.
Canada deserves all this. The rod of consequences is a very effective teacher for those on whom the voice of reason has no effect. Canada decided as a country to subsidize shitty behaviour by taking from the productive class and did not listen when they were told this would lead to fewer productive people (relative to the counterfactual) and more shitty behaviour and proceeded with their misguided idea regardless.
Now they are eating the consequences of their beliefs as they have fewer productive people (lower real GDP per capita) as well as more shitty behaviour (no citation needed) and I have nothing to say other than "You deserve it" and a sincere wish they get it given to them good and hard.
She can very easily get a partner without resorting to such artifaces, all she has to do is be realistic about what her value as a 36 year old woman like her is. The odds of that happening though, even for a rationalist woman, aren't particularly good.
Once again this isn't all (or even mostly) her fault, but rather it is a fault of the society and milleu she lives in that her (inflated) hopes and dreams are about to go splat on the ground and this is one final desperate attempt from a struggling soul to avert doom.
They say that disappointment is caused by the difference in expectations vs reality, and by sending expectations for middle aged women to the moon without doing anything to change the reality on the ground modern Western culture claims for itself another victim.
What she is able to get and keep lies on a cline between the 21 year old incel and the 60 year old functioning alcoholic, the time to find a long term partner was 10 years ago for her. Had she been told at 26 that if she left it until 36 she'd only be able to get the dregs of society to commit to her there is a very good chance that she'd be happily married today. Instead her society which looks down on inflicting short term pain for long term gain has now condemned her to far greater suffering, probably for the rest of her life.
I've learned to phase out and stop caring about such cases, much as we've all phased out to the massive hunger and suffering going on right now in Africa.
Now do you guys see why I want to add 100 million more poor third worlders to Europe? Progressive modernity can not be convinced it is wrong, it has to fail, and fail spectacularly. And what better way to make it fail than giving it the exact same things it wants and says are good and will lead to a better life for everyone, only to have their belief system crumble due to an unstoppable force of human social nature that they have spent decades trying to convince everyone (including themselves) does not exist.
Oh absolutely. Many white people display the same level of victimisation complexes they accuse minorities of harbouring. What these people need to realise is that we minorities don't give a damn about how well or badly white people are doing or have any desire to put them down, we have enough problems of our own to fix to worry about.
We just want to do well for ourselves and promote policies that do that, any harm or benefit to white people is coincidental; no different to how when the gardener mows the lawn, dozens of insects get their lives upended, but the gardener didn't do this to hurt the insects or even think about them at all when mowing, he just wanted an aesthetic result that looks pleasing from the house window.
If the plebes want noblesse oblige they better start showing some obeiscence. The UMC class is already funding your continued existence, start showing some gratitude instead of "Eat the rich" (sidenote: it's much more efficient to eat the poor instead, but that's a digestion digression for a different day) and then we can talk.
All Trump's actions have done is ensure the next Dem president grants a mass amnesty to all illegals in the USA so something like this can never happen again.
Man the plot armour on Trump is insane. If the shooter had aimed just a few arcseconds away we'd have a dead Trump right now.
One thing I've always liked about Macron how willing he is to put the common man in his place and his actions over the last month have only solidified this view. A substantial minority of the French threw a far right tantrum in the EU elections and they are going to be punished for it with total government deadlock over the next year at least. Here's hoping next time around they see sense (the pessimist in me knows though that it'll take at least a few more rounds of "treatment" before they behave).
55% Asian, 40% white, 5% other split
Would you be OK with 80% Asian, 16% white (mostly Jewish) and 4% other if that's what meritocracy says? There are lots of people who scream meritocracy but then when it turns out they lose out to people even smarter than them they want to restrict things so that they stay on top. That's the true criteria for supporting meritocracy (assuming you're white here, I personally wouldn't mind 1% Asian, 99% white as long as those whites were some super race of 200IQ genetically modified geniuses, that's meritocracy and completely fair).
The US would be well served by adopting the Australian method: A relatively easy points based system to get in if you're a skilled worker plus a guarantee you'll be detained offshore and never be allowed into the US ever again if you arrive illegally.
Seeing things like these almost makes me feel sorry for westerners, ... almost.
My personal upbringing taught me to always treat all women with great respect/guard their honour. I was never interested in sleeping around for instance. Shortly after I entered university one of my fellow countrymen who was a few years above me told me that the Western women around me were for having fun with and were not suitable for marriage. He told me that when I was ready for marriage I should bring over a sweet girl from back home. At the time I found the statement to be offensive towards women and was somewhat indignant, for surely (or so I thought) these women were just like those back home but without a strong social norms to guide them and in the end they all wanted the same thing, but over the years with experience I have come to see the wisdom in his words. Western women really aren't worth much more than having fun with.
The problem here isn't women as a whole, but women infested with western brain rot specifically. And Western men played a big part in letting their society get to such a point.
I am no fan of white people and even I think this is not right. There is no way this remark was targeted at any other category in that photo other than white. The photo is not "too perfect" for a stock image, it doesn't seem staged at all. The only good thing from this is that at least the racial animus isn't targeted towards minorities. Hopefully this is a good empathetic lesson for what they historically had to face in the past, and why that was bad and wrong.
Who gives a shit what color Tolkien's world was or wasn't. It could have been purple with green spots and the myth he created would be just as great (yes I know he wanted to create a new mythology for England, at that time populated by white people, but characters in myth need not resemble the people who created it, pray tell which Germans resembled the dragon Fafnir?)
Interesting you say that, because I as an actual practicing muslim (and coethnic) would far rather have the current batch of western elites over the literal Taliban ruling the place.
Sharia law really isn't something you want in the modern world. The prohibitions on interest alone would destroy the economy far worse than what current elites are doing by not listening to economists/giving in to populists.
Allow me to present a more parsimonious explanation of everything we're seeing:
Rust is clearly the systems language of the future. It can be just as fast as C++ and has a much nicer syntax/doesn't have weird idiosyncracies (ok, the last point is debatable). However there are lots and lots of C++/C "dinosaurs" whose livelihoods are going to be threatened were it to lose out in favour of Rust. Thus they need a way to protect themselves (as is only natural) and are trying to at the least slow down the adoption of Rust.
In a bid to do this they've found a feature of rust, namely the fact that it forces you to write good code, presented it as "undesirable" and created a narrative of how rust takes away your "freedoms", thereby aligning themselves to one side of the culture war in a bid to leverage the power of that side to protect their income stream. Nevermind that you can very easily write memory unsafe code in rust by just declaring an unsafe{} block around everything.
It's all the usual ploy of people hating technological progress and advancement because it's coming for their daily bread so they put up spurious blocks and fearmonger to ensure that coin keeps flowing to them.
Unless one is a superior being (read: top 1% in IQ, conscientiousness, compassion etc. etc.) the only form of polyamory which works is a harem.
You know that you sound exactly like the woke left when you're making excuses for why we shouldn't just use SAT scores in admitting people. It's the whole "Asians have bad personality" thing again. With a few rounds of find/replace we can turn your post into something only a highly woke left winger would agree with.
US physicians (I will not call them doctors unless they are an MD, the word doctor comes form the latin docere, meaning to teach; unlike how the uncultured may think about it, true doctors are those with a Ph.D, not those with a BChir, there's a reason why in places like Germany these people are not allowed to call themselves "Doktor" but instead go by "Arzt") are so far up their own ass with how highly they value themselves that it boggles the mind.
I have met many many doctors and the vast majority of them are sub 98th percentile mediocrities pretending they are the intellectual equals of the 99.5th+ percentile thinkers. I've said before that the 95th percentile human being has a lot more in common intellectually with a 10th percentile human being than he does with a 99th percentile human being and something similar applies for the average doctor who isn't much better than a 95th percentile human but has the ego of a 99.9th percentile one (not saying there are no amazing doctors, I've met some of those too but they are the exception, not the average and they tend to be MDs).
I'd be very interested in comparing the average outcome of a NP with the latest AI models trained on giving medical diagnoses vs a lone doctor. My prior is that the NP+AI performs at least as well as a doctor in most non-surgical specialties. If so then the optimal thing for humanity is to cry havoc, give NP+AI combinations the same powers and responsibilities as "full" doctors and let slip the dogs of war on the protection racket US "doctors" are running. Of course this is a pipe dream (never mind the extreme litigiousness of the US meaning NP+AI malpractice insurance costs will be through the roof but that's a discussion for another day) but yeah, either we all grasp the nettle and do something like this or the economic rent seeking of the AMA will continue to extract blood from the rest of society.
This was bad when the left was doing it. It's bad when the right is doing it. The institutional left deserves it but the victims of policies like this are ordinary people, not the institution.
The negative long term societal impact of poor people having children
Some people here may have heard about the short story The Egg by Andy Weir. It's really brief and takes about 2 minutes to read; spoliers below so Caveat lector.
The central premise of The Egg is about a human being ("You", it's written in second person) who just died and is taken to see God. He is told that the whole universe was created specifically as a learning experience for You (who is actually a God in training) and that every single human being is infact a different incarnation of yourself. At the very end God explains to You that "Every time you hurt/helped another you were hurting/helping yourself" with the author's intended moral being something like "therefore you should always help others and be generous etc. etc.".
Naturally being a terminal contrarian I completely disagree. Being someone who wants to minimise the total amount I suffer integrated out to inifinity if I truely knew that I would live eventually every single human life the best thing to do would be to prevent those incarnations of myself most likely to produce progeny who live shitty lives from reproducing in the first place.
Sure, forcibly sterilising people would inflict suffering upon them (and therefore myself) for some small number of years before the reverse hedonic treadmill runs its course, but preventing three kids who were probably going to lead shitty lives were they to be born from existing just saved me two centuries of misery in expectation. This is a trade I'd make again and again until it got to a situation where only well off/intelligent people were allowed to have children for the next generation. By doing this I'd prevent the existance of most of the shitty human lives I'd have lived in the first place, plus the lack of deadweight from these shitty existances needing subsidy from productive humans would mean I could race full steam ahead to grow the economy/research technology without a horde of poors needing to be bribed with gibs so that they don't burn the cities down.
This course of action would basically be the fastest way to create heaven on earth, and when I got to that point I could proliferate an arbitrarily large number of top end humans living in complete bliss (eugenics from controlling who could breed basically filtered out the shitty variants long before this point). Note that the process doesn't require You to be perfectly good at choosing who to sterilize, accidentally sterilizing the wrong people has negative impacts (or even worse, not sterilizing those you should sterilize) but you still get benefits as long as you're dispropotionately sterilizing low value humans.
The story doesn't make You live out your lives in chronological order on earth so basically I could ensure >99.9999% of my time is spent living in one of these complete bliss lives only punctuated by very small amounts of time in a less nice (but still comparatively nicer than if everyone was allowed to have kids, no matter how shitty their lives would have been) existance. All in all it'd be a pretty decent ride, certainly far better than the counterfactual with no forced sterilisation.
I suspect that Weir, who describes his views as "socially liberal" wouldn't quite like this "degenerate" solution to the universe he created. Regardless it remains true that "sterilize shitty people for a better world" is just as valid a moral to take from the story as "help others and be generous".
But this is all just a short story set in a hypothetical universe that doesn't have much to do with our own. However the more I thought about my solution the more I realised it applied to our physical world too, regardless of whether or not we're all secretly one single soul sequentially reincarnating into all the human bodies. For instance right now people on the left complain about "Child Poverty" and how this is a Big Problem That Society Needs To Fix.
The left's preferred solution (like it is often elsewhere) is something like redistribution from those who earn a lot/have wealth to those that don't. This isn't the only solution though, because if e.g. people living below the poverty line all suddenly stopped having kids child poverty would hit 0% very quickly. Not only this but since poors are disproportionately likely to make bad/absent parents this would ensure the average child is more likely to be born into a family situation conducive to good childhood and less likely to lead them into becoming a burden on the state when they grow up.
Of course even suggesting that we should discourage (not even sterilize, merely discourage) poors from having kids is something that makes these very same people on the left quite angry, even though it would go some way towards solving child poverty. Plus the saved money from not needing to subsidise the poors as much could be easily diverted into investment and research, thereby improving humanity as a whole.
Equally people complain about wealth concentration amongst the rich and inequality. Once again if we had a society which encouraged the rich to have children while discouraging the poor we'd get a situation where richer people would on average have larger families and therefore when it came to time for the inheritance to be dished out the wealth of the rich would get diluted while the wealth of the poors would pass on mostly intact.
And of course if rich people had more kids on average compared to poor people we'd get the standard eugenic benefits of the next generation carrying fewer shitty traits on average than the previous one, reverse idiocracy if you will. While the effects of this would be minor on human level timescales when you zoom out to multiple centuries they add up quite quickly.
I've only talked about a few areas here but most modern day western problems can in some way be linked to poor people having kids. We'd all be a lot better off if governments around the world nudged them away from this and instead encouraged the rich to have kids instead. Of course since we live in a fallen world this is basically the opposite of current policy in the UK where if you earn too much your childcare benefits get taken away. Faceplam moment...
The future of Ukraine is Somali and Bangladeshi migrants working on farms owned by American financial institutions and managed by HR women educated in the US.
Still beats becoming a vassal state of Russia. Europe really needs to get off its ass and start arming the Ukrainians properly (it's understandable why the US doesn't seem to care, but Europe doesn't have the same luxury of distance). Yes, this will cost lots of money, but Europe can easily raise this money by massively slashing welfare and benefit spending.
As for OP, there are many women in the Philippines and Ukraine who would be happy to have you.
BTW, OP shouldn't see these women as "lesser" than western women given that they're more likely to say yes to him. I don't know about Ukranians/Pinays specifically but I would venture to say that they are probably going to be more loyal, invest themselves more into seeing you succeed and make a better mother than their equivalent western counterparts (ofc bad apples exist everywhere so choose with care). When you're 50 what will matter is the bond between you and your wife and how secure your relation with your family (children if you want, in-laws), not how hot or desirable she was at 25.
This is another benefit of getting your parents/other elders to at the least shortlist a bunch of people they think would make good partners for you and then you choose from this set rather than choose completely by yourself. In the latter case you'll be more focused on the short term benefits of your potential partner than the lifelong ones they provide and are more likely to end up choosing a suboptimal person when averaged out over your whole life.
Eh, the fourth option is that Saul of Tarsus was the liar who corrupted the word of Jesus to further his own interests and strike the killing blow in his persecution of the nascent Christians by twisting the words of their Great Teacher until they became the antithesis of what Jesus truly wished to convey.
Remember, Saul never met the physical Jesus before his crucifixion. In fact in Matthew 24:27 Jesus warns his followers against believing anyone who says they saw Jesus in the wilderness or in a secluded place after he is crucified. And what did Darth Saul do to ingratiate himself with the Christians? Yep, he claimed to "miraculously" see Jesus first in the wilderness (road to Damascus) and then in a secluded place (the Jerusalem Jail where he was held captive).
In the end Saul was successful beyond his wildest dreams when he first set out to persecute the Christians. Not only did he manage to completely pervert the religion of Jesus but like a cuckoo bird he also successfully placed himself into the religion as one of the greatest "followers" of Christ with many billions of people venerating him in the two millennia since he died; he even had the gall to "correct" Peter (Galatians 2:11), the real true greatest follower of Jesus. And worst of all this veneration still continues to this day with no sign of stopping!
TLDR: Christianity got cucked by Saul and still isn't willing to accept what really happened.
More options
Context Copy link