domain:amphobian.info
pigeonburger
1d ago
Maybe, that's possible.
NYTReader
1d ago
Israel treats its non-Jewish citizens and residents far better than South Africa treated its black citizens.
Slowly over the last 150 years (the roots predate the Victorian era but it was cemented in it, long before most wealthy women worked much outside the home) the primary purpose of marriage moved from children to romantic companionship. This was to some extent true even when upper class Victorians were having 6 kids each. You can trace in literature, the press and so on the concept of a ‘love match’. And then, in accelerated form since the 1970s, married men and women began spending much more time together. The world of a century ago had fraternal and women’s organizations.
A husband and wife would live together but often sleep in separate beds (if they could afford it) and would spend perhaps every evening of the week doing different things. A married man would be at the pub, at an organization like the Freemasons, at a men’s political meeting, whatever. A married woman would be with the children, often with other women in the community and extended family around her, and in free time (or more regularly if she had money for a governess, maid, nanny) at what were effectively sororal (if often more informal) gatherings, lunches, meetings and so on.
The family might be together at church, but that was it.
As Coming Apart narrates to some extent, the rise of suburbanization, the small nuclear rather than multigenerational extended family and then the slow withering of both male fraternal organizations and extended familial/communal women’s groups of the kind that existed in the Victorian city and town ended much of that.
Today, married couples spend an amount of time together, alone (by which I mean with only each other and possibly children for company) that would have been hard to fathom for most of our ancestors in recent centuries. That means that the personality and interests of a spouse are much more important. Money is more important now that women work too, but it isn’t the only central thing about the enterprise.
It reminds me of (I think @Gaashk) the recent discussion on Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez. Why divorce and remarry to a woman your age when he is surely wealthy enough to enjoy the company of endless 20 year old models? I suspect because he enjoys her company and they have fun together, and in the modern age (when even most billionaires spend a lot of time with their spouses, at dinners, events, other gatherings and so on) that is the most important thing.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1d ago
I meant what I said. I have trouble imagining any plausible solution that any modern state has taken to this problem that I would object to as long as it resulted in people not camping in the park, throwing trash on the ground, and yelling obscenities at passersby in the public square. I might have preferences about solutions, but it's hard to imagine proposals that I would consider worse than the status quo on this front. Singaporean harshness would be fine by me. Softhearted liberal utopian visions would also be fine by me. Huge public spending would be fine by me if it actually removes the problem. As long as the problem is solved, I am not that concerned with the exact solution.
Corvos
1d ago
The western liberal answer is that if these people and the nuisance they represent are removed, any motivation to solve their problems will immediately disappear. IMO this is probably correct.
gattsuru
1d ago
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
1d ago
Not that I'm against it, but where the hell did this come from?
I'm not OP but I think I understand his take. It's a question of priority; it's not that I really don't care what happens to these people, but I think what happens to these people is less important than them being removed from public spaces.
Remove them first, then we'll discuss what compassionate solution we can find to make their lives better. As opposed to the standard western liberal answer that if we improve their lives first the problem will itself disappear from the public square, which has time and time again failed to bear out as the affected people actively resist and sabotage efforts to improve their lives.
If you want to think less of me because I prioritize my comfort and peace in public spaces over these strangers' wellbeing, then go right ahead, but I do also believe that there's complex feedback loops where tolerance of public disfunction leads to more disfunction, so I do still want what's best for my fellow human beings.
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
I don't think the issue can be boiled down to "just keep more people in jail longer".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries
I mean sure it would probably work eventually, at great financial and moral cost, but the US is already topping the charts here. Presumably there are other solutions that would get you more bang for your buck.
gattsuru
1d ago
More people are choosing not to go out and do the work. Porn is easy, people are difficult.
and
And a man who has the tiniest shot at a real girl who doesn't repulse him will prefer her to a digital waifu.
don't seem compatible.
Magusoflight
1d ago
Rich men do indeed tend to marry same class women, but who do they fuck around with? How many of those marriages are faithful?
I remember that the site AshleyMadisons most frequent occupations of the users was physician, second highest? Lawyer….
Quantumfreakonomics
1d ago
The State of Israel makes it safe for Jews to live in the Land of Israel. That is the whole point. Living as a Jew in Jerusalem is a higher level of Jewishness than living as a Jew in Brooklyn. It just is. Yahweh did not promise Abraham and his descendants that they would live in New York. You cannot analyze the Israeli conflict from a purely secular lens. Both sides are fighting for the same magic dirt.
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
I'm a very bad person for wanting these guys removed
This doesn't make you a bad person, but
I genuinely don't care what the state does with these people
certainly doesn't make you a good one.
I also live in an area rife with these problems and I sympathize, and think that the state needs to do better at dealing with it. At the same time I wouldn't be fine with "literally any solution", there's got to be red lines about their treatment somewhere. I'm curious where exactly you'd draw the line, and how much you'd want the state to spend on it.
phailyoor
1d ago
it is, in fact, totally dependent on trade with Europe and aid from America for it's continued existence.
That's true for most countries. But as long as you have friends somewhere and don't become a pariah state, you'll be able to continue existing.
NYTReader
1d ago
Yet the past several years have demonstrated that Israel isn't actually self sufficient and that it is, in fact, totally dependent on trade with Europe and aid from America for it's continued existence.
Is Israel anymore dependent on trade than other developed nations? My understanding is that its economy is quite diverse and ranks very high in innovation. As for US aid, it's not insignificant, but Israel would still be wealthy – it's the 16th largest economy by GDP per capita – without any aid at all. It seems like a stretch to say that Israel is "totally dependent" on the US to survive. Certainly this isn't the case for its economic survival.
The more relevant question is how Israel would fare in a region-wide war against it if the US suspended all military support. I don't know enough to say.
big name internet anti-semites like Nick Fuentes and Sneako.
I'm very skeptical that online anti-Semitism has or will translate into real-world (right-wing) anti-Semitism in the US. X has created the impression that there are millions of Nazis actively living among us, but the vast majority of the public are and will remain normies. However, the emergence of a legitimate anti-Israel bloc in the Democratic Party is a real possibility.
The shift in the public perception of Israelis and Jews is so downright seismic and probably couldn't be replicated in a world without a "Jewish state" soaking up bad press.
Of course it could be replicated; anti-Semitism was far more visceral and violent before Israel existed. But the justifications for hating Jews in the past – they control the banking industry, they're culturally incompatible, they're communists – are no longer salient in the West, or really most places in the world. For example, Europe is far more "degenerate" now than it was when it had way more Jews.
FtttG
1d ago
Before 10/7, the slightest hint of anti-semitism was instantly denounced.
I don't know what world you were living in before 10/7, but it seems to be a very different one from the world I was living in.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
1d ago
Now this is Friday Fun!
Recreational bunker shellings when?
the "Jewish State" will not pull all the stops to save your life but will instead attempt to murder you to prevent you from being used as a bargaining chip
I've seen countless crypto-Hamas supporters citing the existence of something called the Hannibal Directive as if they're masterfully laying down a trump card; in some cases, explicitly claiming that Hamas killed literally zero civilians on October 7th, and that 100% of the Israeli civilians massacred on that day were in fact killed by the IDF. These people seem to be engaged in a kind of curious doublethink: on the one hand, they want to express their support for Hamas and the broader Palestinian cause - but on the other hand, on some level they're aware that this means tacitly endorsing some rather monstrous and brutal tactics. The "solution" they've hit on is to assert that Hamas is entitled to fight back against oppression and colonialism, up to and including murdering unarmed Israeli civilians - but in point of fact, 100% of the unarmed Israeli civilians in question were actually murdered by the IDF themselves! How convenient - for a moment there I was worried I might have to confront legitimate moral ambiguity, acknowledge that this conflict isn't as black-and-white as I would like to pretend, or do something facially grotesque like actively endorsing the slaughter of music festival attendees. What a relief that I can instead fall back into the warm, comforting embrace of that isn't happening, and it's good that it is. (See also "Denial by a thousand cuts".)
But for all that such people are keen to cite the existence of the Hannibal Directive, they are generally strangely reluctant to cite specific cases in which they believe it was actually used by the IDF. The intention seems to be to conjure up a free-floating miasma in which all claims of Israeli suffering are responded to with reflexive suspicion, a permanent asterisk over any and all Israeli casualties in this conflict, while being careful to avoid specific (and hence falsifiable) assertions that this specific Israeli was in fact killed by the IDF. "Yes, yes, Israeli civilians being murdered is bad - but hey, did you know there's this thing called the Hannibal Directive? Sure is interesting, huh? Now, I'm not saying the IDF intentionally murdered their own people and then Mossad created some AI-generated footage to frame Hamas for the massacre as a casus belli - but I'm not not saying that. At the end of the day, I'm Just Asking Questions."
gattsuru
1d ago
There was a six-month period in 2018 where every major social media site, and many minor ones, would not only ban transmission of DefCad files, or ban discussion of those files, but even discussion of the ban. And they lost. CodeIsNotFreeSpeech was shoved off AWS. Entirely away from the sphere of sales, ARFCOM was booted from their DNS provider with little notice and no recourse. YouTube has banned guntubers for showing (legal!) machine guns or silencers, or for taking gun sponsorships.
There are other things than guns, for that matter. This story is hilarious in hindsight and the politician in question was able to get a workaround, but a lot of people don't.
And that's the stuff we hear about.
I highlight the pornapocalypses (and dildopocalypses) here because I want people on the right to recognize that it's not just hitting them.
But the other half of that is people who aren't on the right need to recognize that there's been stuff hitting the right, too, and many of these are either less defensible or far broader-reaching.
I made the statement:
"The thing is, that work doesn’t hugely differ whether you’re the wife of a coal miner or a self-made billionaire."
To be clear, I agree with none of these statements:
you are the superior person in this relationship because you are the breadwinner
her little job (if she works outside the home) doesn't count.
Working in the home only? Absolutely does not count for anything
If you do decide to dump her, she deserves maybe ten bucks and a pat on the head, but certainly nothing more.
Not one drop of your vast wealth (should you have vast wealth), even if that share does not, in fact, leave you penniless but you retain possession of the majority of the vast wealth.
I think it would help for you to understand where I'm coming from:
My family is upper-middle class; my father was the breadwinner and my mother was, theoretically, a stay-at-home wife. They did not get on.
In practice, my father had been poor before he married and he worked like a dog somewhere between 10 and 15 hours a day for decades to keep the family afloat and to keep my mother in the style she was accustomed to. My mother then spent that money on cleaners, gardeners and a nanny plus jewelry cars etc. She cooked (but not for my father out of principle), cleaned compulsively (this was not a benefit of marriage, we begged her to stop), took care of us on the two days the nanny was on holiday, and watched soap operas.
My father is now in his dotage; my mother owns both houses, both cars and half my father's pension, while he lives in a rented apartment on what's left. He has adopted the practice of just giving her anything she might want up front because everyone knows in the event of a divorce she would be sweet-talked by a charming firm of lawyers with an ampersand in the name and both of them would end up with peanuts.
Can you see why I'm a little dubious of the idea that if you marry someone, credit for your achievements should be always and automatically be spread equally?
Of course this is only an anecdote and I don't intend it to be applied to all relationships. I am sure that there are a lot of traditional couples who have a much more equitable relationship with a more even share of responsibility. I do note however that:
- In practice, the contribution of the man in a modern, respectable, upper-class marriage is concrete, well-defined and non-negotiable. I do not think the reverse is true. Caveats: this is different for the underclass.
- Work in the home and childcare is absolutely hard work but it is more stable than work outside the home. You are not going to be dossing around, but neither are you going to be pulling multiple all-nighters. The type and amount of work are much more even between families and socio-economic levels. My statement at the top was made with this in mind.
- It seems to me fair that the compensation in the event of divorce should be more even in recognition of this fact. This does not mean ten bucks and a pat on the head but nor does it mean billions unless you were very clearly and openly doing an appreciable amount of the work that made that money.
ABigGuy4U
1d ago
I should have known it was only a matter of time before the men in black came round to silence me.
Crowstep
1d ago
Boys don't like girls, boys like postgrad housewives
What does the man with a lot of romantic options want?
Does he want a beautiful young trophy wife? Does he want a high-earning girlboss?
The answer, according to Lyman Stone, is neither. What he wants (according to the data) is a woman around his age, with the same academic qualifications. Men with younger (and indeed, older) wives are the ones earning less money. What rich men want, it seems, is a (cultural, educational) peer.
With earnings is becomes a bit more complicated. As a man's income goes up, so does the income of his wife. But richer men earn a larger proportion of household income, and the women married to these men are the most likely to not work at all.
So what's going on here? The Red Pill explanation of men preferring younger women doesn't seem to fit, since the men with the most options (high earning ones) are more like to choose women the same age. However, these couples also choose housewifery at the highest rate. My interpretation of this is that the more money a man earns, the more secure in their class position the couple can be. Therefore, they can afford to have the wife give up work without losing their place in the class hierarchy.
The bitter professional woman explanation (men are intimidated by my qualifications and high salary) doesn't seem to work either. Sure, wives of rich men are the least likely to work, but those that do work are also the highest earners among women. A more parsimonious explanation seems to be that high earning women want higher earning men, and they (mostly) get them.
High earning men seem to want class peers. A woman's qualifications are a marker for class, and a woman's high salary is a manifestation of her class. Of course, once married, they can afford for her to stay home more easily than poorer families.
The thing that surprises me most is that you don't see richer men marrying younger women, as all of the older-younger pairings I've seen in real life have involved high-earning men. It might be that richer men marry younger, and therefore there is simply less scope for large age gaps. Or it might be that richer men are more sensitive to judgement from their peers, who would disapprove of larger age gaps.
NYTReader
1d ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the person you're describing has been arrested in the past for disorderly conduct or maybe a low-level assault.
Anybody here watch police bodycam videos on YouTube? Post-BLM, there have been dozens of new channels (Midwest Safety is one of the largest) that upload bodycam footage daily. In almost every video, the person they stop and arrest is inevitably a repeat offender. Sometimes they're being arrested for the same offense – like domestic violence – but often times it's an entirely new thing.
The point is, a high percentage of these people have been convicted of multiple crimes but are always let out after a short jail or prison term. That's the issue as I see it.
This sounds very likely.
And it's probably bloody difficult for a billionaire to find someone they feel genuinely comfortable with.
More options
Context Copy link