Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
i mean he's a fascist, so ofc he views everything as a commodity, everything as a financial transaction
Which is the opposite of fascism lol. In fascism monogamy and marriage are super-crucial and out of marriage relationship shunned on severely.
You don't even have the basic idea of what you pretend to fight against. People who see everything as a financial transaction are some of the most anti-fascist people you can find.
yes incel are people who are single against their will basically. True incel would be a virgin, but the term has been "opened" to include people who didn't have sex for a long while even if they would have liked to.
True incels shouldn't have to be virgins.
"Celibate" isn't defined that way. It just means not having sex for some period time not permanently or ever.
I think this is quite wrong. Men don't like other men much but we need each other's company to share our vices, whatever they may be. Men generally appreciate women and what they do for the world, but realise that masculinity is basically a joke nature plays on us.Kingsley Amis express great relief when his sex drive vanished in old age, saying it was "like being chained to an
this is peak self hating
the highest rates of divorce by far are lesbos, the lowest by far are the gay
the middle is hetero couples
i think it's clear which side is the agreeable side and which side can see no blame on anything they do but have a vast list of reaffirming quotes and delusional nonsense like choosing a bear over a strange male in the woods - something that sounds cute as a rhetorical device but would prove disastrous if ever genuinely put into practice
Unless the vast majority of the people they interact with are... like them. Like in Japan or in any small rural place in Italy where they don't even speak italian well.You know those people who sometimes others do documentaries on, because they live far more than the median as a cluster in some areas? they are all tight knit communities of reactionaries who never changed what t
They have done studies of communities where supposedly super aged people are clustered. And the feature most common to those communities was poor record keeping.
I disagree fundamentally. Sexual mechanisms for men are such that historically, a tad less than half the men who reached fertile age reproduced (vs 80% of women).Alpha is the top 10-20% that has basically a guarantee to reproduce (if he wants to) no matter what. The rest that has a chance is beta. That's a real life, human phenomenon.For a while, with complex cultural structure
A good chunk of childless men aren't getting "outcompeted" by your imaginary alphas. They either chose not to have children (or were unable to have children) for whatever reason, or they are unreliable jerk offs who no clear-thinking woman would voluntarily choose to have a child with.
Call it whatever you want, but Kingsley Amis certainly wasn't the first person to express that view. In fact, it is an ancient idea. In The Republic, Socrates talks to an old man named Cephalus who says: "When the desires cease to strain and finally relax, then . . . it is possible to be rid of very many mad masters."
If male desire is such an uncontrollable and impulsive force of nature that overtakes your agency, then maybe men don’t belong in positions of leadership.
If male desire is such an uncontrollable and impulsive force of nature that overtakes your agency, then maybe men don’t belong in positions of leadership.
Clock ticking is a thing for women.
Why do you want to distinct and separate both genre in opposite categories.
If they weren't complementary there would be only one genre.
A good chunk of childless men aren't getting "outcompeted" by your imaginary alphas. They either chose not to have children (or were unable to have children) for whatever reason, or they are unreliable jerk offs who no clear-thinking woman would voluntarily choose to have a child with.
They are in the sense women don't commit anymore in their 20s with non-top men because they gamble the chance to get a top 10% much more than before.
Society doesn't treat them like failed pariahs if they aren't married with children at 30 because feminism, and women do answer social pressures a lot.
+ Ofc the huge "women should have careers like men" thing, that's all feminism as well.
The betas can still get them later (all those who failed to find the "prince" and still want children), which is why you see this very common pattern of delayed couple formation.
Except that if the woman accepts to settle at 33-34 (she starts accepting the idea the prince won't arrive by then), she gets her 32% or 41% man but in the time necessary to find out that's a good match you would have kids with you are 36-37 which is terrible for fertility (man will be 40+ as well usually which isn't top for fertility either especially given sedentary jobs and non optimal diet).
And so you have fewer couples, formed later, and some of them who do want children anyway can't because of actual fertility problems.
And all of this, every part of this, is entirely caused by feminism having become mainstream.
Feminism is closer to the state of nature than previous arrangements were btw.
Except in the state of nature the alphas do ingravidate the women in their early 20s at most (often earlier) and that at least provides children.
In a bad way because many of them are "bastards" with no father figure and so on ofc, which is why we struggled hard to change that.
Now feminism gives women all the motivations to try to land the jackpot (=have children with the most successful men in the tribe, and the tribe is larger than ever) with no social repercussions if they fail, and that is a recipe for fertility disaster for the aforementioned reasons.
Everything would be much smoother if women could easily have children at say 42 or 46 but unfortunately they can't. Not regularly with ease for the first child.
There is a massively growing industry for that which maybe will come out with some breakthrough but for now they are only slightly improving bad numbers at the margin.
But I am mean everything is fine. We are at 2 children per woman in Bangladesh and 0.8 in south Korea but everything is fine
They have done studies of communities where supposedly super aged people are clustered. And the feature most common to those communities was poor record keeping.
That's the 100+ years old places yes.
But the central appennine elders and the Okinawa ones, with 3-4 years of life expectancy more than the rest of the country with lower than median incomes in first world country with good bookkeeping are those I refer to
If male desire is such an uncontrollable and impulsive force of nature that overtakes your agency, then maybe men don’t belong in positions of leadership.
Every healthy human being has a hunger desire that can overtake agency, does that mean no one should be in a position of leadership?
Why do you hate human nature so much as to consider basic human pulsions negative?
Everything which is common among human beings is morally fine definitionally if you are a humanist
If male desire is such an uncontrollable and impulsive force of nature that overtakes your agency, then maybe men don’t belong in positions of leadership.
I wouldn't say it overtakes agency but it certainly influences it. Taking a look at female political leaders doesn't inspire much confidence either but maybe those people have too much testosterone.
The world doesn't need men hanging around after they've impregnated a couple of times. The social structures etc are best taken care of by women.
Until a neighbor is willing to kill every one of your group and is organized to do so, maybe.
If you don't have to build anything anymore nor operate heavy machinery or have firefighters
I wouldn't say it overtakes agency but it certainly influences it. Taking a look at female political leaders doesn't inspire much confidence either but maybe those people have too much testosterone.
Selection bias there. Peace loving people don't rise to the top of this genocidal warmongering organizations.
Every healthy human being has a hunger desire that can overtake agency, does that mean no one should be in a position of leadership?
Why do you hate human nature so much as to consider basic human pulsions negative?
Everything which is common among human beings is morally fine definitionally if you are a humanist
Bullshit. Blaming your dick for bad decisions is nothing more than your standard run of the mill boys will be boys lack of accountability nonsense.
Someone should set up the feminist version of CHAZ and let them run the experiment. No men allowed.
When it fails, I’m guessing it will still somehow be the fault of men.
Every healthy human being has a hunger desire that can overtake agency, does that mean no one should be in a position of leadership?
Why do you hate human nature so much as to consider basic human pulsions negative?
Everything which is common among human beings is morally fine definitionally if you are a humanist
this is the stupidest thing said on this forum in a while
Everytime I come here some 40 year old single like rickroll or some micro penis luciom is defending their stance as a male moron againat crossnerd. You both suck ok. You literally are of no use to the opposite sex the both of you. So seriously crawl back into your sex less holes and fak right off
