@Botond173's banner p

Botond173


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

				

User ID: 473

Botond173


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 473

I'd refer to an older comment by @Lewyn:

The original Michael Bay Transformers is exactly this type of period piece. It encapsulated everything about that era of early-2000s American culture; military dudebro Call of Duty aesthetics, jingoistic patriotism, frat boy humor, etc. That type of theming was dead and buried by the 2010s, but is maybe making a resurgence now. I remember hating it at the time, but it does feel nostalgic to see now with how different everything became.

(emphasis mine)

It's fairly easy to resolve this contradiction because it should be easy to identify how it all worked in practice: singles did have a choice in mating but only within the social circle they were confined to by their family and elders. In plain English this meant they were provided with a limited pool to choose from. So both factors were at play.

Normally, too many women chasing too few men do result in debauchery and lower standards, yet that is not what we are seeing.

Are you sure about this?

Didn't the Great Depression do away with the flapper phenomenon though?

The same phenomenon was described in this comment chain extensively by @2D3D.

Perhaps you mean that they are less vocal about what they want and expect the man in a relationship to Just Get It

Yes, basically. In more detail: two things. One: in order to elicit interest and initiative from eligible men, women need to have sufficient social skills and awareness to send indicators of interest that are also plausibly deniable. Two: after the man initiates conversation, the woman needs to be able to, well, hold it. As far as I can tell, many Asian single women are found lacking in both cases.

This issue has been fairly extensively discussed on Manosphere blogs back when they were still a thing. I can recall the main arguments more or less. Shrecker's analysis is fundamentally right with one important caveat. If the sex ratio in question becomes even more imbalanced, the effect starts to reverse. What apparently happens is that even men of lower social status start exploring opportunities for casual sex which is something they otherwise never do. This nauseates women and they respond by rejecting such advances wholesale and essentially forming a new sex cartel, waiting for the Chad with a heart of gold to show up.

Generally speaking, the average age of marriage is low and the marriage rate is high when women outnumber men, but only slightly - which has normally been the standard state of affairs. This means women in general are imbued with a sense of urgency but are at the same time not getting demoralized/dispirited.

When there are much more men then women, the general attitude is 'why should I bother settling down, all guys are available'. When the reverse is true, it's 'why should I bother settling down, no guys are available'.

As opposed to any usual office job?

Steve Sailer has also addressed this issue back in 1997.

Isn't it also true though that Asian women have usually terrible intersex communication skills?

20 years ago a young man who typed "how to get laid" into Google would have found the pick-up artist community, which would tell him that by doing fun adventurous things like approaching women he could gain social skills and have a lot of sex.

I think it's important to point out here that the classics of PUA literature were all written in an era when smartphones and tablets didn't exist in a practical sense.

Which also incidentally applies to rates of lethal gun violence.

Maybe people do it on a bit of a whim more often than we think.

I wonder if you're familiar with the overall conclusions in social science on the use of coal gas ovens in the UK?

Well, jobs at local factories have been disappearing for decades, so there isn't much to say about them. The "only one car" thing used to be the norm when middle-class married women were not yet expected to commute to fancy office jobs or to drive their kids to various after-school activities. So it's not like couples are buying two cars in order to show off to their social circle. I'm not sure where the part about leftovers come from.

Objectively, the conditions faced by Americans from 1980 to the present are not stressful.

I think the original claim is that it's the extent of social and cultural upheaval and dislocation between 1950 and 1990 that was stressful.

But at the same time, the accidental death rate among 15-19 year olds has fallen from 57.8/100k in 1980, to 18.9/100k in 2024

I guess this period also coincides with the decline of the latchkey kids phenomenon and the gradual de-normalization of what we would call today free-range parenting. On a different note, the notion that street gang membership and the popularity of dangerous hobbies has somehow declined in the same time period is suspicious.

Automation, agricultural mechanization and deindustrialization and mass immigration have all happened though.

I'm guessing the decisive factor in this is that the hard labor of dumb people used to be necessary for society to even function. Nowadays not so much.

Why is there more stress and suffering now that would lead to the tripling of teenage suicides?

I'm no social scientist but I'd point out that this was the era of so-called latchkey kids which is a phenomenon that has largely disappeared since then but used to be the norm among GenX teenagers. This surely appears to contradict the thesis of some researchers that "the steady historical contraction of children's and teenagers' freedom to roam, play, and explore independently without adult supervision contributed to rising alienation and mental health strain" (according to Google AI). Admittedly I'm at a bit of a loss regarding this but I also assume that the environment where latchkey kids were forced to learn autonomy was also a stressful one.

I'm also guessing that lead poisoning and illegal drug proliferation also played a role.

As far as I know, those 'hundreds of bombs' were actually 8 standard propane tanks bought from a store. It appears that they, being more or less average teenagers except for their murderous urges, just assumed that detonating those is a rather easy thing to do when in reality such tanks are manufactured with safe usage in mind for heating purposes. Are you referring to the pipe bombs they made earlier but did not eventually bring with them? I think those are only marginally useful.

What I was referring to is that moderate Red Tribers used to support a normie-friendly tendency of 'compassionate conservatism' coupled with a sort of watered-down neoconservatism that allows average Joes to strut around as militaristic tough guys and is based on the notion that Middle Eastern wars can actually be cakewalks. When this nonsense fell apart, moderate Blue Tribers seemingly got the idea to promote a sort of more or less fake civic nationalism intended to 'heal the scars of a racist past' and improve relations between white and black citizens etc. This also fell through so everyone was disappointed in the end, which is fertile ground for political polarization.

The Bath School Disaster in the 20s.

It bears mentioning for context that this was a bomb attack - an IED attack, to be more precise - by the aggrieved school treasurer.

Are you familiar with the book Going Postal: Rage, Murder and Rebellion in America by any chance? Here's a review from the Guardian.

It appears that Bush demoralized moderate rightists whereas Obama did the same to moderate leftists.

I think it's pretty much well-established fact at this point that normies mostly don't read past the headlines. So I think most of them just assume that 7 brutes lured away, then held down and brutally raped some clueless maiden.