HighResolutionSleep
No bio...
User ID: 172
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
Pound sand.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Yes, there are a thousand differences between the two novels—but let's not be silly here. Porn isn't a feature you take or leave with a piece of media. It's either primarily what you want or you don't consume the material. It's not a matter of statistical chance that the most popular piece of women's media ever is such a hardcore piece of smut.
There is no Playboy for women.
Sure, and there's no Fifty Shades for men. Girl lust and boy lust don't look exactly the same but there's no reason to think that one is inherently more conducive to monogamy than the other.
Look, I’m not claiming women are “purer” or uninterested in sex.
Okay, so what's your point in objecting to anything I said? Well that's obvious: because you do disagree that women are no more pure in their sexual intent. You just spent the previous paragraph praising the virtues of women's sexual gaze, how it's all about relationships and all that. We're talking about non-monogamy and its consequences for the human race. You posted about how specifically men's sexual vices are destroying our societies—the vice of sexual liberalism and the men who pushed it for their own gain: the gain of having less attached sex with women. The gain that men got at the expense of women. Men's ill-gotten gain against women.
Do you think I'm stupid?
I believe that as much as I believe that guys watch PornHub for the plot.
The key thing to observe here is that Twilight, the version without the hot sex, was outsold by Fifty Shades, the version with the hot sex.
Are you going to tell me that the romance was that much better?
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
I'm not completely opposed to telling brown legal immigrants and citizens in illegal immigration hotbeds (kind enough to label themselves "sanctuary cities") that they really ought to start carrying their papers, provided that the state of exception doesn't last too long.
My bet, though, continues to be on nothing ever happening. The browning of America will continue apace, and the Trump deportation spree barely a blip in the grand scheme of things.
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
As a Shareholder-American, it sure would be great for me. Not so sure about others, though.
HighResolutionSleep
2mo ago
Exactly what due process do people think was missed?
They don't. They are simply lying. Yes, it is my belief that to say Garcia was "denied due process" is a lie.
I spent the first few days or so believing that the Trump administration had simply picked up someone off the street who looked brown enough to be an illegal immigrant and sent them off to El Salvamo without so much as a leaf of paperwork. No due process. No oversight.
I was lied to, and the lies had their intended effect of planting a false understanding of the facts into my mind. "This could happen to any citizen!" Please.
I'm most disappointed in myself. After eight years of this shit I still haven't learned to assume every negative thing I hear about Trump is an outright lie until I see it with my own eyes.
HighResolutionSleep
2mo ago
Every indication is that every effort was made to give this man due process, and that a procedural shortcoming prevented the third opinion from preventing the deportation.
If the cops pick me up and toss me in jail because they have a warrant for my arrest they didn't know was cancelled, my due process rights are not being violated. I am a victim of a procedural deficiency. To say that my right to due process has been violated would be incorrect.
When you combine this with the sensational rhetoric of "this could happen to anyone" etc, this incorrectness becomes undeniably malicious. It is a lie.
People are telling this lie because they want to paint the image of the Trump administration as an unhinged and tyrannical force. People getting the wrong idea when hearing these lies is a feature, not a bug.
I'll feel less bad about Social Security if ever convinced the only alternative is UBI For Women and Single Mothers.
HighResolutionSleep
9mo ago
Yes, I understand how this shell game works. The processes and procedures have been set up such that if I see a gross mismatch of funds and priorities and I get mad, I'm an ignorant rube that doesn't understand how government works. Pretty cool, huh?
Which if you are remotely concerned about fiscal prudence, you don't want FEMA to be able to do.
It seems that the funding and command structure of this government organ has already failed spectacularly. I don't know, I'm pretty stupid, so maybe I'm seeing things.
Here's an idea generated from my simpleton brain: how about we amputate FEMA as government organ and create in its place an organization with a budget and command structure so that when funds are squandered there's someone to hold responsible. Maybe there's reasons beyond my understanding why this isn't possible.
HighResolutionSleep
9mo ago
Alright, so I suppose the answer is actually theoretically infinite. It's possible that we could endlessly shovel money into FEMA, and there could still be no money for hurricanes depending on the charge codes. There is no amount of money that one could see going into FEMA that one could feel safe knowing there's enough for actual natural disasters.
The organization has reached the point where responsibility for budgetary decisions is sufficiently diffused that when something like this happens, it isn't anyone's fault in particular and nobody can be fired because everyone was following orders/procedures. Well, I suppose we can get mad at republicans for not authorizing the right charge code as a part of some monster monster omnibus bill.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
She's a 10, there's absolutely nothing wrong with her, you managed to bring her home with you, and she's a little tipsy. But you just noticed that on your bookshelf behind her there's an exposed and visible hardcover copy of Ted Cruz's Unwoke. What do you do?
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
HighResolutionSleep
9mo ago
What I'm asking is how much money do we need to shovel into this organization before it starts having enough left over after migrant expenses for hurricane response. The money we're allocating now isn't enough for the hurricane budget after other expenses. How much more money do we need to give before there's enough?
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Why is there this special carve out to discriminate against men?
Because men think it's gay to organize and demand things. Simple as.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
But if you embrace victimhood as part of your identity, you're dooming yourself.
Not if this leads to political action. See: feminism. The problem is men as a class have trouble getting to that part.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
My comment doesn't blame men for the breakdown of marriages.
The comment in question:
In the same way, the person that initiates the divorce isn't necessarily the person that ended the marriage.
I speculate that is more likely for men to "quiet quit" on a marriage, in a way that is less possible/likely for a woman.
The woman might be the one who files the divorce papers, but in a lot of cases the man checked out a long time ago and has been, sometimes willfully sometimes passive-aggressively, baiting her into filing.
A man will stop doing anything around the house when he checks out of his marriage. Men typically do fewer chores around the house to start with, and have a greater tolerance for mess/disorder/eating trash.
Often this extends to kids: he's not scheduling doctors appointments, buying them clothes, keeping track of their schooling.
I could also just do another common thing men do and just...stop coming home after work.
This is before we get into things like Exit Affairs, when an extramarital relationship is just a tripwire to make her file, or physical abuse.
So the dynamic is often that a man stops doing anything around the house, stops substantively being a husband, and then a wife files. So the decision these women are making when filing isn't "Happily Married Woman vs. Divorced Woman" it's "Abandoned, but legally married woman with no legal tools to control her spouse's use of marital assets, still expecting divorce vs. Divorced woman, with legal tools to control spouse's disposal of marital assets."
HighResolutionSleep
4mo ago
It's against my direct interest but I'm curious what a 20% red day would look like in the age of tiktok
we've a good half a generation that's never experienced a major downturn
HighResolutionSleep
10mo ago
I confident you would be just as horrified if I said that men should also be stoned if they say they'd be fine with another kid and then dipped out when one actually happened.
HighResolutionSleep
10mo ago
By "abuse of power" are you talking about a woman who baby-traps an unwilling man with a surprise pregnancy
Any time a woman in a marriage decides to go and have a baby without mutual consent. Sure, for reasons of bodily autonomy or whatever she can still choose to betray the privileged trust of marriage and stab him in the back, but the cultural and social consequences for exercising this choice need to be dire.
As for your edge cases, no, the most extreme and unlikely scenarios you can imagine are not societal problems.
Let's keep things on rails: I said that the broader reaction to it is a cultural problem, which is anything but an "edge case". Not the anomalous event itself.
HighResolutionSleep
11mo ago
Putting it differently, what level of sacrifice do you think it is okay to demand from one person to save another from a major financial onus that they knowingly exposed themselves to the risk of?
This argument is always such a mind-bender. You're getting the causality exactly backwards—her choosing to give birth is what engages his financial obligation under the current legal scheme, not the other way around. This obligation can be discharged without affecting her ability to choose.
The engine drives the transmission, not the other way around.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
I'm not sure I find "fault" in any of them
HighResolutionSleep
2mo ago
I've been incredibly bearish on "civil war" rhetoric since it began, but this proposition would be a fantastic way to pluck the dumbest possible outcome out of the haystack of nothing ever happening.
If the Supreme Court did this, Trump would no longer have any incentive to do anything other than march his most loyal thugs into the courtroom, dome all nine on public television, declare himself Emperor of the United States, and simply let the chips fall where they may. Would he do this? I'm not sure, but you never know how someone is gonna behave when they have been truly cornered until it happens.
Is this a risk worth taking to give an illegal immigrant two flights back home instead of one?
HighResolutionSleep
11mo ago
Perhaps, but we'd need at least multiple generations of favorable cultural iteration before reproductive autonomy for men isn't a fringe lunatic idea. I imagine that by then the issue wouldn't practically matter anymore.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
What's stopping you from doing that now?
And I think that they should also reflect facts like, for example, women are the sole authority over the reproductive process from start to finish, where such facts are applicable.
Get bent.
Get bent.
More options
Context Copy link