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.
Tree
2mo ago
I also support taxing churches. They are very similar. We give them these exemptions and the worst partisans use the surplus to fight a propaganda war against each other at great cost to the rest of us. It's like a polarization subsidy.
Tree
2mo ago
Wrong, they always had the power. The best part of the trump wrecking ball program is that it will put to rest the antidemocratic lie, widely believed on both sides, and the source of many problems, that the average citizen has no power and can be safely ignored by the elites.
It might even be worth it to smash some valuable things so people can re-learn that lesson. But these billions in endowments are not even valuable. Well, you know what I mean. It’s actually triple-good to seize those (teach a lesson, eliminate illegitimate unproductive source of polarization, fund the state).
Tree
2mo ago
Why does the american right tolerate these endowments? I would not let the state grab a single dollar from a red-blooded american as long as these mausoleums hold all this wealth. Every time you breathe, the state takes its share. But dead men’s money stays untouched in the ivory towers. Untouched by you, I mean. Thin men and thick women pay themselves sinecures from the ill-gotten treasure. Worse, these janitors conspire to turn it against the state.
Tree
2mo ago
What else is there to be envious of, his fucking watch?
And, you can’t take the hassle? That’s new. Although if I have to choose, I much prefer that reason for censoring yourself, than the implication it is to protect our fragile egos and ids. The latter could be interpreted as a challenge, or as passing the buck.
Tree
2mo ago
That only makes your refusal to let us know what men yearn for but can never admit all the more cruel.
Tree
2mo ago
Half an hour before you usually take the nap, darken your room so you can’t see daylight, switch on a small lamp and keep doing what you’re doing. Half an hour later open the shutters. It could trick your brain into resetting to the awakening pattern of “now it’s daytime, sleep is over, I should do stuff”.
Tree
2mo ago
I don’t understand the negativity. When I clean up my sheets, I like to think those dust mites getting boiled on the 70C program look on fondly on a life well lived in my bed. To me a little bit of suffering, a little bit of death, does not invalidate the awesomeness of living.
I don’t want to give insect welfare people any ideas, but if you assingn some utils to a dust mite’s life, it would make sense to farm gajillions of them for their utils. For a nominal sum, you could be creating entire universes of all singing all dancing beings. Accessorily, you wouldn’t have to worry about clipping a mite life here and there when you’ve been raising throngs of them from the ether.
Tree
2mo ago
You’re thinking of the Cagots, who were treated like pariahs for hundreds of years. No one really knows why, as they seemed similar in every way to the surrounding population, except for pariah status, which besides the strict social segregation restricted their trade to carpentry.
This has led one writer to speculate they were the descendants of a fallen medieval guild of carpenters (?). There’s the national myth theory that makes them the descendents of the muslim warriors who lost to Charles Martel when he stopped the islamic expansion in 732. There’s one etymological-based theory where they were the slaves of the ancient visigoths (“cani gothi”, dogs of the goths). There’s the reverse uno card theory that says they were the first to convert to christianity and the surrounding pagans kept resenting them for their virtue signaling long after they themselves converted.
But one of the top theories is that they were descendents of cathars. And the imo most likely, is that they were descendents of lepers, because a lot of the prohibitions involve touching.
Tree
2mo ago
Where did things like that go?
Since they disallowed banging the babysitter everyone thinks it’s pointless.
Tree
2mo ago
Germany's problems are not dysgenic fertility. They are: low fertility, and terrible immigration policy. Why does the alt right conflate everything together? It does not matter that the lower class is reproducing more than the higher class if both are not at replacement level. Dysgenic fertility is a first world problem, so to speak – our problems are far more serious than dysgenic fertility. It’s like worrying about disproportionate drowning in the desert.
Why would all else be equal in high risk aversion world? It’d be a wasteland. People would almost never change jobs, or create companies. Capital would be far less productive, it’d be all tied up in swiss bonds. It’s true as the one-eyed in the land of the blind you would personally do very well. Hell, you could even become the world’s richest man by exploiting all the riskophobes, ie selling insurance (buffett reference).
Tree
2mo ago
So be it, I believe you when you say your preferences differ, I’m not all that invested in team tit.
Obviously the lesbian separatists have far more political, as well as personal, motives for their claims.
And I don’t know much about those bimboficater mods, but they seem to be a reaction to forced uglification and outright hostility to male sexuality (or as they call it, objectification) in gaming, but we don’t need to get into all that.
For whatever reason, the "tit men" always seem to be desperate to assure themselves that everyone secretly shares their preferences, and they are just the only ones being honest about it
Because when your friend is within hearing distance of his flattish girlfriend he will always proclaim he loves small boobs above all others, when it contradicts everything you thought you knew about the man.
people with socially shunned sexual preferences.
If liking big tits, as common and prominent as it is, is a socially shunned preference, then every expression of male sexual preference is socially shunned. Which it is, to a degree, see never-ending objectification complaints. Stuff like : You like asian women, that's fetishism. You don't like asian women, that's racism, etc.
Tree
2mo ago
How would you go about justifying those ?
Because it’s not just AI on the opposite side, there’s that study about enhanced strippers making more money, porn actresses, insta models, why is page 3 for a nice chest such an institution, size of the breast enhancement industry, etc.
I don’t think you could find as many arguments in favour of your thesis as the blog’s, but assuming you did, and you wrote it all down, it would still be considered rude and ‘creepy’ to write such a long blog on sexual preferences. It would be ‘marginalizing’ to non-preferred women no matter what the preference ends up being, like ranking women 1 to 10 is controversial independently of the scale used. So some guy would inevitably show up to defend women and say it's all wrong and call the writer of this alternate thesis a nerd and a loser.
Now if you tell me this consideration consideration has nothing to do with your opinion, then I’ll grant the possibility that the blog is only applicable to ‘tit men’ (they'd still be a majority though).
God forbid any woman would find herself in financial difficulty and would have to earn a living, like any man ever.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link