Nope. Utterly, totally fucking wrong. A big part of why I like cities, as a straight man, is that the dating scene is better. Good luck with your OLD apps in the exurbs though.
yeah? where do you live, where it's a 30 minute drive to the opera house, live theater, and art gallery, or any other sort of cultural scene, but you can still buy a large suburban home for cheap? are you a time traveler from the 1950s?
Ironically, i need to first move to a city to find a wife. Only then can i move to a suburb to spawn and become a normie. That's the American cycle of life.
I'd say its a vibe more than anything specific, which makes it hard to put into words. Almost everyone i meet there is married , has kids, and moved there intentionally to raise their kids. They live in a world of Disney movies and Youtube Kids. Talking about sex, drugs, or anything "weird" is verboten.
And yeah, there's the internet... but I feel like the internet is getting worse every year. And driving 30 minutes for real life culture is highly optimistic. I don't just want to stare at some paintings, i want to be part of a community that looks at paintings, do you feel me?
- People, at least once they hit a certain age, want the SFH and the big yard with the fence and the space to raise their children.
I would say that's a very specific type of people. Snooty urbanist types like myself sometimes call them "breeders." It works if youre a married couple, age 25-45, with young children and a steady long-term job. It does not work nearly so well for others.
For me, i grew up a place like that. I remember it being great as a kid because the yard was big enough for me to run, and my boomer parents could either leave me at home or easily drive me around town. The local public school was nothing special, but good enough.
When i became a teenager though, it was stifling. A suburban yard isn't nearly enough space for any real sports, so it just become a pain the ass thing to take care of. Everything is designed around driving, so i was stuck dependant on my parents for all transportation until i got old enough to drive. The local school was excruciatingly boring for a gifted kid. No one seemed to care about anything except work, grades, and sportsball. If you were caught outside "loitering," the police would come and forcibly bring you home. The "spacious" surban home still had thin walls and a bad layout, so we had no privacy. I, like many teens, started staying up late to avoid my parents.
When i go back there now as an adult, it seems creepy. An adult single male just doesnt fit in there at all. Everything is oriented around child rearing- for young children. Almost nothing is open at night. There's hardly anything in the way of aets, music, or culture. The social life all revolves around "the parents of my chikd's friends." Its just not a place someone like me can live.
It's interesting that all the 90s era Star Trek shows seem to follow this pattern: A great pilot episode, then a weak season 1, then gradually improve over time. I agree with you that the pilot of DS9 is a great, and I love most of the show, but season 1 was unfortunately a mess.
Normally I think network TV follows the opposite problem. The pilot episode is a mess, everything is crammed into too little time since they're basically establishing and advertising the entire show. They're not even sure if it's going to be produced yet, so they don't want to put too much money into it, and the actors are all still learning their role. If it does get produced, I usually like the rest of season 1 the best, since that's when the writers and producers can really put into place the ideas they had that inspired the show. But then if its good and gets renewed, it tends to go down in quality over time, since they run out of ideas and feel a need to continuously escalate and "jump the shark."
90s Star Trek was really something else. I miss it so much.
Can you find me an example of a teacher (or some other normie core job) getting fired specifically for only fans? all the examples that other people linked seem kind of old fashioned.
Yeah but notice that there's extenuating factors in both. In the first, she was in a movie where she openly talked about being a teacher. In the second, the school initially defended her until it turned out she was still using her porn name to promote Libertarian politics. Both of those are news stories from 10+ years ago about a woman who was in porn 20+ years ago.
Alright, I'll grant you it can sometimes result in them losing a job. And props for researching all these cases. I still don't think it will happen all that often though, and increasingly less with time. Like in your second example, it sounds like the school initially took the side of the teacher, and only decided to fire her after it turned out she was still using her porn name to promote Libertarian politics. And the last one had no trouble working for... 45 years(!?) that's crazy that they still fired her. It will depend on the specific school board and administrator though.
It’s very obvious that she’ll never find any sort of respectable job. She’ll never be a secretary, a nurse, a teacher, an HR manager, an accountant etc
I don't think that's obvious at all. Imagine going in to your local school and telling them that one of the teachers there used to be a porn star. They'll ask "was she breaking the law?" and you'll say "Well, no, it's all legal, but the movies are pretty shocking." They'll ask "when was this?" and you'll say "oh, years ago. Then she retired and went back to school for an ed degree so that she could get a normal job. But we can't let her get away with that, you need to can her immediately for her bad morality from when she was younger." They'll ask "How did you discover all this" and you'll say "I make it my quest in life to investigate ex-porn stars and trace them to their current location so that I can find out what they're up to."
Somehow I don't think that conversation would go well for you...
An argument I've heard is that the vast majority of accounts on OF are barely active. They try it for a few days or a few weeks, upload a few low-effort selfies, and then give up when it doesn't instantly make them rich like they were hoping. Or they just get embarrassed, who knows. But the ones who actually stick with it and grind it out, uploading new content there and on other platforms daily, they tend to make quite good money. Maybe not "mansion in your 20s" money, but much better than most jobs. They have other options to make money too which kinda go together. The typical pattern is like: Make an instagram with sexy non-nude pics, make a twitter that's similar, and then an OF with the nude pics. Depending on how it goes they can make money from sponsorships, work as a model/dancer/promoter for regular clubs, dancer at strip clubs, or just straight up escorting. All of these things go together, and the OF account acts as a force multiplier for getting paid attention in other ways.
Yeah I'm just assuming this is a typical college class where you only write a handful of essays so each one is worth a lot. But the problem starts even with small assignments- you get one zero and you need 10 perfect grades to make up for it.
I feel like it exposes what I've always thought is a flaw in the main US grading system. Officially, anything between 0 and ~60 (depending on the curve) is an F. The best you could possibly do is a 100% A+, unless they want to give extra credit. a 60% is a terrible grade, but it still at least gives you the chance to come back and pass the class. A zero pretty much sinks your grade for the entire class. Giving her a zero here means, not only was her essay bad, it was so bad that she's probably going to flunk the rest of the class no matter how hard she works, unless she begs and grovels for extra credit. There's a bigger range between a zero and a 60% F, then there is between a 60% F and a 100% A+. I just feel like that selects for the wrong incentives.
Personally, my grocery bill has doubled in the last ten years. My house has more than doubled in value - I'm fairly well off, and I couldn't afford to live in my neighborhood now. A new model of the same car I'm driving (5 years old) would cost $20,000 more
My understanding is that a lot of economic inflation models depend on "hedonic regression" adjustments for these prices. So they argue like, "sure the prices in nominal dollars are up. But now your groceries include Flamin' Hot Doritos instead of boring old potato chips, the new car has Automatic Lane Stabilization to keep you safe, and your neighborhood is much safer now that all the people there have gotten older."
why do they do that? why not oxy or heroin? how are they even still alive?
Drugs are not made alike. Someone smoking weed, doing coke or dropping molly before a concert is in a very different reference class to people shooting up heroin/fent or smoking crack pipes.
Accidental ODing from taking an entirely different drug is closer to dying of a peanut allergy after ordering gummy bears. It's not suicide.
I particularly dislike fent because it's like the Worst Drug Imaginable, and because it screws over even people who want to stay away from it. Thankfully it's not common in the UK, and the Albanians keep the coke clean.
Agreed with you on all of this. As far as I know, almost no one intentionally takes Fentanyl, because it's not fun and it's pretty much straight poison. They take it accidentally because it gets mixed in with other drugs.
This situation is dicey. As I understand it, most of US cocaine comes from South America and especially Venezuela these days. They don't need to bother with Fentanyl, cocaine is plenty cheap enough there already, the only hard part is getting it into the US. So these drug boats are probably just carrying cocaine. However, after it's into the US, it gets mixed in with fentanyl by dealers here who want to make extra profit. The Fentanyl comes from Mexico or China, and it's a lot harder to stop because it comes in such small quantities and we have less power to use military force against those countries.
Using lethal force against a fentanyl dealer seems justified. Using lethal force against a coke dealer seems like massive overkill. In this case... maybe that's the only way to stop the fentanyl from being used? I don't know, seems like a trolley problem.
The point is that sharing a room is obviously worse than having your own room. The whole discussion was about things that are better now compared to the 1950s or vice versa. You're not adding anything to the discussion with your condescending boomer comments about "kids these days" or crying about your shitty childhood, it's totally irrelevant.
Not even close to what I wrote. But hey, if you want to relive your childhood, I'm sure you can find a retirement home with small rooms and a roommate to share.
what does a 1950s hotel look like? I feel like, in some places it would be really good, and in other places it would be terrible. Just luck of the draw, maybe.
that sounds uh... awkward. i mean. I'm glad that you're family was so close. you're probably happy in many ways, and I envy the close family relationship you have. but wasn't it uh... awkward...?
far enough that it's a pain in the ass to walk there before having coffee in the morning
Yeah. I thought that went without saying, but its worth spelling that out in case some people don't know.
This also led to ann odd situation where, for a while, relatively poor white people in the rural south could afford help that middle class whites in the northern suburbs wouldn't have.
Ironically im currently living in an airbnb with no coffee maker, so all i can have is crappy instant coffee. But i guess its nice i can stay in an airbnb and not uh.... a boarding house? Whatever the 1950s equivalent would be.
I dont think its like, objectively morally wrong or anything. I just think most people find it uncomfortable and would prefer not to live that way. At least past the age of, like, 6.
- Prev
- Next

Well, the literal mathematical answer would be from the second you turn 13 until just the second you turn 20. So 7 years. Almost half their life at that point, and more than half of the years they actually remember.
A less literal answer is that it's all the years when an adolescent is expected to have adult-type responsibilities, but without adult-type privileges. So roughly from age 10-18, although the exact age range depends on the person and their situation. But the exact ages don't matter, we see the same pattern play out again and again and again- an adolescent is stuck living in an environment that's profoundly bad for them. It's kind of odd to me that so many parents say "I'm moving to the suburbs for the sake of my children," but don't seem to care at all about what it does to their older children.
But hey, I'm an adult single male, so no one give a shit what I think. Let the soccer moms rule society.
More options
Context Copy link