hydroacetylene
No bio...
User ID: 128
I keep seeing this ‘what to do’ take, but an angle that just gets left out most of the time is this- statistically, most of the young women not having children are in long term cohabiting relationships, and we know transforming those into marriages leads to higher fertility. Convincing cohabiting couples to marry is probably both cheaper and more effective than convincing unselected women to have kids/more kids.
I mean teachers pay is politically radioactive in the US and doctors are roughly as sympathetic.
The US has local party committees. You can get involved by going to your precinct convention, in person, and voting in the party election. These precinct elections are very poorly attended and so you can probably win a ticket to your county convention. It helps if you’ve previously volunteered with an advocacy org and block walked in the primary- you need both of these to get an invite to young republicans, which is a social club and not a political org, but it’s not necessary just to vote in party elections(and literally ‘showing up in person on a random Tuesday in the late evening’ is the only bar to clear for that).
The events are, literally, social events to network/build camaraderie among people who are already politically involved. You earn an invitation, you don’t request one.
You want an in for young republicans? Go join a pro-life protest a couple times, then volunteer for the campaign of your local further-right Republican in the primary- look for state legislator candidates with a GOA or taxpayer-friendly endorsement. You’ll get an invite.
Getting invited, personally, to go door to door isn’t hard, though- just hang around where young politically engaged conservatives are.
As a religious guy, his best in would be the local pro life movement. Go join a group that protests or holds prayer vigils and go from there.
Revenge porn laws create some, don’t they?
I mean at the end of the day it is difficult to reliably tell teenaged from adult women, and so I suspect most major AI’s will simply not allow you to turn pictures pornographic. There will almost certainly be laws creating strict liability for AI’s and even nonconsensual nude images of an adult woman aren’t going to go over well.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think AI erotica is going away. But just like YouTube doesn’t want hardcore porn on it, chatgpt and grok will eventually get much stricter about erotica, and there will likely be separate, much less pg-13, AI’s.
Houston, Texas, piloted a ‘gold card’ system before the state made them stop because it was covering illegals, where preventative care and EMTALA treatments were covered by the government when given to people who weren’t going to pay any amount anyways. Eventually, healthcare systems will get this nationally as a bailout for themselves. The old will still be on Medicare, the health sharing orgs will keep growing, and the poor will just have shitty non-emergency care.
The young republicans recruits individuals involved in conservative politics already(pro-life movement, block walking, etc). It does not take randos interested off the streets; it’s a social club for young people who are already politically active.
The one near me hosts events, they just don’t advertise to the public.
I know the hypothesis that you’re a government official trying to get commentary from the big brains is ridiculous, but posts like this make it awfully tempting.
Relatedly, I would be in favor of social messaging to encourage fewer people (but especially fewer women) to go to college, and start families instead. But realistically I don't know how this social engineering would work, especially without the power of a church behind it, and I am not in favor of increasing the power of religion, so, yes, once again you may be right that there is no real solution.
There is already a thumb on the scale in favor of women getting more educated uber alles. Obviously removing it is difficult in se, but we should probably start there.
Nazi collaborators are so old that it's a waste of time to bother with anything else.
You can reduce the number of women going to college pretty substantially without actually getting it below the male rate.
While the historical double standard is real, it was supported by widespread prostitution, not a one sided hookup culture. Seduction was literally a crime in these societies.
Yes, there were a handful of artists and very wealthy men who got away with it. They get away with statutory today(see Epstein et al), which is the actual equivalent(remember, the concept of a 'teenaged girl' as a box a young woman might fit into is actually very recent- most historical languages had equivalent terms which meant 'unmarried young woman' and they had similar legal rights and protections).
Except that spinsters lived, yes, but in poverty. So did domestic servants, prostitutes, etc. Women had a far smaller range of jobs available to them and earned far less from those jobs than men working them.
I have a theory that collapsing social norms play a big part in this- in the eighties and nineties single people were expected to go out dancing(etc) even if it wasn't their cup of tea. Nowadays only the very extroverted/promiscuous/partying do this. And, well, 'not a huge partier' is a legitimate preference to have(which most people share for their long term partners, on both sides of the gender divide). It's a whole thing where evaporative cooling of the normal modes of social interaction make those modes of social interaction less appealing for normies.
I've seen guys on twitter lament that the only women at bars, dance halls, etc are 'washed up party sluts' or whatever, with boomers wondering why guys think this way all of a sudden. And I have a sneaking suspicion that shy second grade teachers in the eighties were a lot more likely to go out dancing anyways than they are now- do you think they liked the club much back then? It's loud and it's after their bedtime and there really are a bunch of sleazy guys out to get them there. Phones and occasional hinge profiles are so much safer, even if they don't work.
It seems relevant to note that an American man who isn't top of the market, income height etc wise in the Philippines is, uh, probably not able to travel to the Philippines. I don't think 'mail order brides' tell us anything because the bargain is pretty simple- she gets a much higher standard of living with a husband who's less likely to be a violent drunk and her children live in a much wealthier society, he gets a wife. That's not a deal that the domestic dating market will likely have.
Now be getting passed on those undivided country roads while going above the limit.... Texas, man.
You can't produce a similar video about church based daycares in the Texas suburbs, because 1) Texas provides very little childcare funding, it's simply not a priority to subsidize moms to work(help for low income mothers through state-funded private charity does exist, and I suspect some of it probably is misdirected- but you'd need to prove it through boring accounting auditing of the center which provides diapers to low income families, not showing up unannounced, and pregnancy resource centers are already a maximum progressive target so if it was anywhere near as widespread as seems to be happening in Somali communities there'd already be a media expose) and 2) church based daycares in Texas have an intentionally much laxer licensing regime. Comparing the licensing documents to physical evidence onsite is simply not doable in the same way.
Indeed, we do occasionally see some culture warsing ire over pregnancy resource centers(which mostly exist to give free items to low income mothers), but the progressive position is that it's unconstitutional because they are Christian and opposed to abortion and the conservative position is that progressives being upset about it proves that they want to maximize abortion and not actually help women. Very little arguments over what group is being railroaded.
This expose sounds like it's risky and high effort for a traditional journalism outfit to carry out. That probably explains more than ideology does. In contrast youtuber citizen journalists with poor rigour are... well the people you'd expect to pull high-risk high-reward high-effort exposes. Especially twenty three year old males.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a real faction of the left which is actively opposed to competent center-left government on the basis that a reactionary backlash creates the necessary conditions for their own ideology to succeed? I'm not aware of this having ever worked out, but 'well grounded in history' is not a criticism that can be levied at anti-capitalists(which is well established among the activist portion of the labour party) anyways. It seems like 'intentionally leading to a far right government' is a thing which theory would expect lefty activists to occasionally do, and Keir probably doesn't have the party discipline to stop it.
Argentina is big and seemed to have an entrenched deep state. It's poor, sure, but that's not a structural difference.
The puritans did kill 21 people in Salem over witchcraft.
- Prev
- Next

It was something generic like ‘a boy’s life’ or ‘this boy’s life’ or something by an Anselm Wolfe or wolf.
More options
Context Copy link