Tree
2mo ago
Yeah that's also my read, but it remains confusing, and the hypocrisy accusations don't help, since there's hypocrisy everywhere and all the way down. I guess arjin means james lindsay (who is the main anti-("woke-right") figure) who dislikes trump and tucker for being post-truth populists, may have also condemned greenwald, using his recently exposed sexual proclivities?
Tree
2mo ago
It may be slightly delusional, but I am confident everyone is just incompetent and I could do parenting in like one fifth of the regular time. Modern parents are like those people who are constantly in credit card debt. Just spend less … time on your kids.
Mothers should stop nursing early. Put the kids in a progressively bigger cage while you do other stuff. Then you let them in the garden, and after that you give them a key so they've reached their last cage-level, and voila, you go to their graduation, fire off a "well done, son/daughter" and you're free.
Fundamentally all the time and money invested in them beyond the absolute basic minimum has no influence on their outcomes. Could even make them worse: neurotic and coddled, or suicidal like koreans from education.
Tree
2mo ago
There's really no need to apologize. Or agree with me on divorce or anything else.
Although… if I had to continue the meta-discussion, I’d say that agreeing with someone, like an apology, is giving them a status boost, and disagreeing a status hit, and is even often seen as a direct attack; here again all the status implications are polluting the search for truth… but I’ll stop. You meant to be nice, and for that I thank you.
On advice of counsel I invoke my privilege against summary opinion dismissal and respectfully decline to answer your inquiry. Presumably, the personal experience of being a divorcee would make one bitter and lacking in objectivity, too emotionally invested in the subject, and therefore wrong. But is this really the case?
To take another example, let’s say I gave my opinion on parenting, or education, in favour of homeschooling, or against authoritarian parenting. Someone will come and ask me if I have children, again as an implied criticism, to dismiss the opinion of the childless man. But unlike the divorcee, in that case, it is the lack of personal experience, the lack of emotional involvement and lack of subjectivity, that makes him wrong. Opposite causes, same effect.
So it is not epistemic hygiene and concern for the truth that makes these opinions worth dismissing. What then? Status. It is lower status to be divorced and childless. So the dismissal based on personal circumstances pretends to be a method of searching for the truth, but is really about the status games we all play, pushing some people down, getting to a higher rank.
I don’t mean this as a harsh criticism of you, as if I’m responding to an offense: ‘you just made an enemy for life, buddy.’. For all I know, your comment comes from a place of 100% pure empathy, goodness and the search for truth, justice and the american way, you seem like a friendly guy. It’s just a thought, idle speculation.
Tree
2mo ago
Nothin‘ wrong with that face. Although I wouldn’t push it to the limit, vegan-BMI-wise. The only person I know who died of natural causes before reaching thirty, was a cousin’s girlfriend, a sports-obssessed thin vegan, heart attack. I may be over-using that anecdote to justify my erring on the overweight side, but it’s still true.
Tree
2mo ago
Implied obligation, uh-hu. So if the housewife cheats, she should be financially left in the cold, right? She did not fulfill her implied obligation of fidelity. Or if she wants to leave with the pool-boy, same, she should be financially punished for rug-pulling the contract like her husband is if he cancels.
If (for instance) a woman interrupts or gives up a career while married, whatever you think about who has is 'hardest', that is very obviously done on the understanding that this loss in current and future earnings is fine because the man will continue to earn.
That is not obvious at all. It’s a pro-moocher perspective.
To put gender out of it, let’s say my gay lover was a doctor or a banker, and I lived idly at his mansion, drove his porsche, and occasionally walked his dog. It would be ludicrous for me to pretend that my lazy ass ‘gave up my earnings’ on the understanding that his income will support me in the future. If the relationship ended, far from demanding he hand over his assets , I would thank him for letting me use his stuff while we were together, and be on my way. It is not some great sacrifice to not work, it is a privilege.
If you don't like those obligations, don't get married.
People don’t like them, and they are not getting married. The obligations are not fixed in stone. If we made them better and fairer, people may get married more, and hate each other less.
Tree
2mo ago
You're a progressive, Harold. Why would you want to punish people for adultery?
I think alimony is a completely outdated concept. There is no reason to award it ever. The solution to the problem of the law encouraging women to mooch off men (and alimony is only a small part of that) is not to make it easier for men to mooch off women.
Tree
2mo ago
Are you limiting your dating pool to vegans/people who care about the environment and such things? And with the running and biking and swimming and bean-eating, are you maybe too thin, do you have like a veganface ?
It is a strange idea to have an exclusive sexual relationship without sex, or at least future plans for sex. Don’t kids call it just friends, no benefits? Although now that I think about it, I know one old guy who stayed with a woman for eight years, in his twenties, and he wasn’t getting any either, ever (this bothered him a lot, and mind, no one involved was religious, or ugly). The relationship ended when he first met his girlfriend’s sister, who had sex with him that very night. So at least you got off early.
Tree
2mo ago
That is only a convention. Society has retained features of ancestral marriage that benefit women and jettisoned the rest. They come from a time where housewives would bring far more economic benefit into the marriage (a dowry, tending the chickens etc) .
What if I said: “get bent woman, it’s my money, you did not work for it. You never had full ownership of my assets, only the usufruct, and that limited right lapsed with the divorce.” Obviously the courts would disagree. But their opinion is not a law of nature.
Women are only so eager to get married, and then divorced, (and men reluctant) because our laws give them huge financial benefits for doing so. We have structured society so that the ideal, most high-paying career for a woman, is marrying a rich man. And then we wonder why they are not in STEM and contributing to society as much as men.
Tree
2mo ago
Right to spousal support started because, in the ideal world of "women do not work outside the home", once divorced a woman had little to no chance of income of her own.
God forbid any woman would find herself in financial difficulty and would have to earn a living, like any man ever.
"The idle parent" shows your lack of comprehension of how a household works.
Single guys spend maybe 2 hours a week on household chores. When they move in with a woman the weekly dose per household goes to 16 hours, without any kids. Most of the housework done by women is busywork, deadweight loss. They tidy and clean in circles, and if that’s not enough waste, they remodel. They brush the slabs outside, where people walk, and want the roof power-washed, where no one ever goes.
Funny, I thought the entire point of the rant about women was that men very much would give a shit if their wife fucked another man, and if she dressed like a slut. Or if she left her nice hardworking ordinary guy husband for a bad boy who looked cool but was trashy.
We’re not all the same, with the same rants, you know. I accept that adults can fuck who they want, as our legislation says, and I want that rule applied fairly.
You seem to have a great deal of hostility towards another woman, based on her appearance. I’ll put it down as a data point in favour of slut-shaming being mostly intrasexual competition.
Tree
2mo ago
Your preferred religious morality rules are not applied fairly. Are you in a position to punish women financially for adultery like you think cheating men deserve? No. Because the system officially runs on very different principles (egalitarian & sexually permissive) that aren’t applied fairly either.
Partly because guys like you refuse to apply the same censure to women as you do to men, women get to pick which sort of marriage they’re in at any given time for maximal advantage.
Tree
2mo ago
She put a few stamps on early orders, that must entitle her to half the future earnings of the man who created and worked all his life as CEO of that company. I think not.
We live in a time where every wife feels like an “equal-value partner” in their husband’s business, and the laws we made agree with them. But they are not.
(which, again, were easily avoidable by those men).
I understand it's always the man's fault and he always has to pay. If he cheats, well he got what he deserved. If she cheats, he failed to nurture a woman's love, he didn't treat her right, and you wouldn't want to slut shame a woman anyway, and besides, she 'contributed' to the marriage, so here's the bill again.
At every level of society, at every age, women get more than they put in. Starting at university, where they have been 56/44 for decades despite working far less, through marriage, divorce, and pensions, where they live longer after having contributed less. And the more we hand over to them, the more oppressed they feel.
Tree
2mo ago
Men have no reason to dislike sluts, on the contrary. It’s women. Like OP, women want the sexually promiscuous of their own sex, and I quote, ‘culled’. So that now perhaps, their dream partner, deprived of rival options, will turn to them, on their terms.
The women and their priest (religion, and Christianity in particular, being a woman’s game, with women’s ethics) always rail against the town bike. But most men secretly love the slut, as you recognize. And no wonder, because how can one love someone who gives seldom, and grudgingly? Men’s tragedy is there aren’t enough bikes to go around.
The fallen woman who pays the ultimate price? Yeah it’s common, but it’s part of the silly trope where the writer really wants to tell a mundane story that happened to him, he’s two-third done and fears he has nothing left to say, so to make it seem more important, give it some oomph and end it with a bang, Mr. or Mrs. Smith dies at the end for some ill-explained reason. It’s death out of a machine. And look at that, it's the end, and there's a death, just like in real life, death is the end. They all sit back and wait for the nobel after that flash of genius.
Tree
2mo ago
I appreciate the attempt. I guess we just disagree on the charitability threshold, specifically the distinction between being wrong and lying. Of course I agree that the woke problem is not limited to 3% of Harvard’s output, but being wrong on this, and making a few flippant tweets, does not make hanania a bad faith actor.
And “Avoiding mentioning” is not a crime sufficient to establish mens rea. I also think Darwin should have been treated more charitably, so there you go.
Tree
2mo ago
I don’t see why a woman should have any right to a man’s earnings after termination of the marriage. Being a good companion and a good parent is easy. Making money is hard. If one parent stayed at home while the other worked, if there’s a divorce, the idle parent should owe compensation for the time they twiddled their thumbs and watched teletubbies on the other’s dime: they’ve had their fun, it’s their turn to work now.
I smell a stuffy prudishness in your condemnation these men: are you familiar with the modern concept of no-fault divorce? No one gives a shit who fucked who, and even less how the paramour dressed.
Tree
2mo ago
Sounds like you need someone to give you permission to believe in HBD. Permission granted. It‘s not that big of a deal. Just stop assuming any random black person is as smart and friendly as you.
On the plus side, now you can tell these stories you‘ve been ruminating on. They eat some well-meaning people up from the inside.
Tree
2mo ago
I see, you make fun of his appearance because he made fun of your friends‘ appearance. His point about the low caliber of right-wing discourse stands.
What else? „lolcow“… if you could look into his brain argument… wrong vibes… „total bitch“ . You‘ve convinced me he‘s actually more correct than I originally thought.
Tree
2mo ago
Why, because he looks weird?
I think he‘s smart and feisty. You guys complained for years that Scott is too nice, but when a guy gets a little combative, then you‘re offended.
What are the public intellectuals you guys approve of, anyway?
Tree
2mo ago
The man looks at a madagascaran girl in rags picking vanilla beans and sees the american people being taken advantage of. He ain‘t right in the head. Better than starmer who hands her the nearest military base, but still.
This chagos episode recontextualises the tariff deal with britain for me. I did not understand why britain would agree to such terrible terms, maybe it meant britain was weaker than I thought, but now I realize it‘s just starmer being happy to always give in at whatever terms the other side offers.
Even if one interprets trump‘s tariff policy goals maximally charitably (de-coupling from china, avoiding trade deficitis), none of them apply to britain, your most accomodating ally who you don‘t even have a trade deficit against.
It reminds me of that scene in The Long Goodbye where the mob boss breaks a coke bottle on his girlfriend‘s face, and while she screams in pain and desperation at being permanently disfigured, he threatens Marlowe: "Her, I love. You, I don‘t even like."
Tree
2mo ago
What a doormat. It’s like the opposite of the maga failure mode where you’re so paranoid about getting screwed that you end up hurting yourself by damaging mutually beneficial relationships. Is it too much to ask for politicians with a healthy sense of self-interest, that don’t constantly feel either exploited or exploitative?
Tree
2mo ago
First, they are not people. And that’s not a dehumanizing comment about my opponents.
Second, the state constantly seizes real people’s shit, via the salami slicing technique.
Third, despite being considerably less than people, they are exempt from tax, so treated better than people.
Tree
2mo ago
It would be a good start to remove their tax exempt status, sure. Seizing the money sounds bad, but this is not money that rightfully belongs to an individual proscribed by a capricious state, it’s from a heavily-subsidized institution that in theory performs government-like functions. It could be seen as just correcting some accounting mistake in the financing of government goals, or as making them pay some tax arrears, or inheritance tax.
You’re a reasonable guy, Ben. Maybe you can tell me what the obvious, very good reasons against a 1%/y wealth tax is. All I ever hear is that taxes are bad, which okay fair enough, but that’s not specific, and liquidity problems, which I don’t find convincing. If you can’t cough up 1%, you’re either incompetent or bankrupt, and you shouldn’t be holding assets.
stuff that all of society benefits from, and almost nobody else wants to do.
That’s an argument from laziness, tainted with status quo bias. You want to fund science, fund it. There's no reason to delegate this power to universities, when it's clear their goals can very much diverge from the societally beneficial one. It's spelled out in the OP: they almost used the money society granted them to fight a titanic legal battle against the government for partisan reasons.
Your other argument is that since any one person or institution cannot fund all of USG, they shouldn’t be taxed.
After “aella is dumb, because child aella was afraid of pain”, OP chimes in with “aella is lazy and superficial, because child aella cried after being publicly embarassed”. After these two unflattering bits of psychoanalysis (by two women), you lament the “male obsessive fawning“ over her.
Is it, though? Would you say: religious conservative upbringing leads to damaged girls?
Or perhaps: abusive parenting leads to sexually liberated women?
But someone’s worldview must be in shambles, and maybe all.
More options
Context Copy link