The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
It's actually worse than that. If a man is a juicy enough target, e.g. a conservative Supreme Court nominee, people will believe accusations where the man and the woman were in the same city, regardless of whether they were intimate.
Or even if he's not, as in the bizarre Mark Pearson case, where a woman (herself an actress, whose name is STILL not allowed to be released, though the Internet claims it is Souad Faress ) accused him of rape. Evidence was they passed each other in the London Underground. He was acquitted, but it went all the way to jury trial, the process being rather punishing.
And this is why we're in this positive feedback loop -- no matter how ridiculous reality is, almost everyone will blame the problem on the men who recognize it.
It grants far too much leverage. It means even when she IS interested, if they go a little further than friends and then turn out not to be interested, he is subject to at least universal social approbation if not worse. A rule enforced as strongly as this one is meant to be followed.
While I am sure that there are cases of genuine antisemitism in the Democratic Party, I think that the median case of what gets called antisemitism is simply hostility or neutrality towards Israel.
Maybe in the past. Now the median is either "student protestors" waving Palestinian flags, chanting "from the river to the sea", and harassing or assaulting anyone they think is Jewish, or it is people covering for those people.
The rule originally existed to be broken, but it now exists to be followed -- this pattern has been noted in many contexts on this very board.
The propaganda, however, is true. And the men who can make it through are scarce and often not high quality. It is true that a common female strategy is to put up an apparent brickwall filter -- that is, a filter that no one passes -- and accept only men who ignore her objections. However, that strategy only works when it's possible for decent men to do so. Current culture does not.
Which the bluenoses and metooers keep trying to shut down, and they appear to be slowly but inexorably succeeding.
First, meeting strangers for potential dates is inherently a terrible idea that humans are not designed for.
But there's a social rule nowadays (developed by decades of Jessica Valenti/Amanda Marcotte types, and enforced by social approbation) that you are not supposed to date your friends. It's considered bad faith to do so; the irrebuttable assumption is you were only friendly with her so you could get into her pants.
Dating is a matching market. Matching markets just tend to be hellscapes, and the larger they get the worse they get. But that's not the only problem. The change in balance in power is part of it. I just saw a thread on twitter where a man was derided because he said he want on something like 30 dates and they all went the same way: he took the girl out for dinner, they went for a walk, and he waited for them to initiate physical contact because he didn't want to be #metoo'd. Only 2 did (which is higher than I'd expect). You can claim this is merely paranoia on his part, but that requires putting your head in the sand.
In the UK I believe this would be true, but in the US we like our de jure equality.
No. 2 men out of 3 in a jury of 12 were convinced to say that there was at least reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy was legally sane when she murdered her kids. While I disagree with these men (and the 9 women), this is not such an obvious thing as to be equivalent to "female abuse is literally beyond their ability to comprehend"
There was no Clancy verdict. One of three men, and none of the nine women, objected to the otherwise-unanimous vote of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Eh, there is no meaning in that sense, beyond "a zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes". Certainly that's what 19th-and-earlier century rural living was about -- you lived to survive and raise the next generation. Works the same in suburbia, it hardly matters that the zygotes make their living in the back area of Walmart or the cubicle farm rather than the back forty of an actual farm.
The tastemakers have made hating suburban living part of their identity, and that's part of the culture -- Little Boxes, Pleasant Valley Sunday, Subdivisions, A Wrinkle In Time, The Stepford Wives, etc. Which is why few will claim that suburban living is part of their identity; it's Just Not Done. Yet nearly every time someone's complaining about the cost of owning housing (as opposed to rent), the benchmark is going to be a single-family detached house, likely in the suburbs. Often enough, one in the town they grew up in, or perhaps the very same house.
The mother yelling at the child for calling 911 does not constitute "abuse" under the statute given.
Nail salons employ a lot of low-skilled women who literally put nail varnish on the customers' nails - it is not a business you would see as a gender-conforming man.
You do, because you walk past them as you're going to the pizza/chinese place or convenience store in the same strip mall. I guess maybe if you doordash everything you wouldn't see them. Most of the ones in my area have big clear windows where you can see the techs working on the client's nails (or, more usually, that no one is there working, which is why I suspect the money laundering story is true)
The Chinese "massage" places are less obvious.
You underestimate the power of hypocrisy. Wave a magic wand, say "Holocaust" three times backwards, mumble something about Hitler, and pretend Jewish wealth isn't a problem as you're cashing the checks from Jewish donors. The Hamasniks will have to be brought to heel for this to work, but that's not impossible.
This is probably true, but if Gaza manages to be an issue in 2028, it would be a problem for the Democrats in my area (northern New Jersey). Lots of secular Jews, but many religious ones and VERY and unapologetically Zionist. This year it seems like the DNC managed to tamp down the Hamasniks a couple of weeks ago, so it'll have little effect on the midterms.
I guess Vietnamese money laundering is higher status than Chinese prostitution.
"White" referred to certain ancestral clusters, but the Irish were definitely always included. And the Sicilians, at least in the US (the other Italians might disagree). Certainly Slavs are included. Unless you take Ben Franklin's definition, and honestly I can't tell if he was trolling.
The Hajnal line is not about whiteness.
Socially acceptable for whom, the Asian-American community or the mainstream? I would assume the former, but the inclusion of nail salon worker seems kinda odd (my impression is that's considered a bit on the seedy side)
However, the Potter series as published does not really fulfill this potential. It's often been remarked on, I think, that even by the last book, the theoretically-eighteen-year-old Harry is still written the same way he was when he was twelve, where he's a bit passive, a bit incompetent, and has too many of his victories served up to him on a plate.
Harry Potter does change, in the fifth book. Unfortunately, almost entirely for the worse, becoming a sullen and whiny teenager who was perhaps the inspiration for Anakin Skywalker's personality in the Star Wars prequels. His changing back to his earlier personality is actually an improvement.
They'll complain the suburbs are bad and in the same breath complain a house in the suburbs costs way too much.
or remaining at home or any other location for a reasonable period of time.
This leaves the path to conviction wide open. The "reasonable period of time" could be anything. And the typical person will reason from "the child got hurt" to "therefore the parent's absence was negligent and the period of time unreasonable". And similarly from "the child got hurt" to "allowing such activities constitutes willful and wanton conduct that endangers the health or safety of the child"
Add to diatomaceous earth, and you get significantly less iggy.
- Prev
- Next

Oh, European political classes like themselves quite a bit. The common people not so much, I will grant you.
More options
Context Copy link