Botond173
9hr ago
It's just one example I listed and is thus largely irrelevant to my overall point. It's not the important part. As far as I know, it's true, and getting more boosters is certainly a bad idea. Otherwise I don't care. If you have an ideological motivation for asking this question, then please state it plainly.
Botond173
9hr ago
Seriously though, what would a defeat of the enemy look like, to you?
I can name some examples now that you asked. For one, violent criminal “refugees” from the MENA region getting arrested and deported. Not being “ordered to be deported”, which is very obviously a BS measure intended to deceive NPCs, but getting deported i.e. physically removed. Or cutting aid to Ukraine. Or not suppressing the fact that COVID “vaccines” have caused a massive number of early deaths. Should any of those actually happen, I’d be saying that roughly 30% of the work is done.
Good thing the enemy is easily identifiable and irredeemable monsters who are completely separate from us.
Most of them have in fact made themselves easily visually identifiable already, through public statements and also forms of body modification typical of leftist 'spiteful mutants' (h/t to the Jolly Heretic).
Botond173
11hr ago
You can always destroy those institutions instead of trying to control them. Those can be rebuilt later according to different designs.
Botond173
12hr ago
I'd agree that OP is indeed incorrect. The corrected statement should be this: they can just advocate for murdering you, your children, and your representatives and suffer virtually no political consequences.
Botond173
12hr ago
Saving, protecting or building should only come after the enemy is defeated though, through vitriol and aggression. Otherwise they might destroy what you were building and protecting.
Botond173
13hr ago
Your original claim is that women who have less kids than they claim to want say the thing stopping them reproducing is a lack of male investment. I assume the 'lack of male investment' equals an accusation that men are generally unwilling to commit; this is a widespread and usual female complaint. I'm not going to comment on that in general here but I'd argue that the main reason why women delay marriage is that they are unserious about it, don't see early marriage as necessary or preferable, decide that they have other priorities and aren't aware or just don't care what effect their biological clock actually has. So yes, I think it's factually true that 'she was unable or unwilling to secure the necessary male investment at a time when it would have made more difference'. I'd also add that a woman unable to secure male investment is in most cases someone unwilling to prepare and present herself as a potential wife, the exceptions being unfortunate women who are hideously ugly or having some genetic defect.
Botond173
1d ago
I am including "started too late because I married late" as lack of male investment
On what basis, may I ask?
Botond173
1d ago
I've long concluded that it's largely impossible to have a clear-headed, rational conversation about these issues with women.
Men ran away as fast as they could from marriage and child-rearing during the Sexual Revolution.
Where's the evidence for this? For your argument to be true, stats would have to prove that men were filing the majority of divorces and were the ones driving the overall delay of marriage and parenthood. As far as I can tell, the opposite of this is actually true.
Botond173
1d ago
Normie hetero men aren’t likely to make a real attempt to bone pubescent girls even if they happen to have a strong urge to. But it’s not such normie men who usually rise to the higher levels of political power. It’s in fact something that psychopaths are likely to pursue. Also, the exercise of political power is ultimately a collective act. Nobody can seize and exert power on his own, he’ll need people he can trust. And a group cannot exercise political power unless they all hold one another in check and there is a tangible risk of penalties for betraying that group. Hence politicians are incentivized to work with and recruit other politicians who have dirt on them.
Botond173
4d ago
Is it because of the obnoxious true crime nerd wine moms, or due to other reasons?
Botond173
4d ago
There was a post here a while back linking to an unpleasant and depresing anti-children essay talking about how the fertility crisis is inevitable when women are allowed to choose freely (link: https://kryptogal.substack.com/p/the-fertility-crisis-is-inevitable).
I searched for the blogger's name. It seems to be this discussion initiated by @Hoffmeister25.
Either way the name "Investigative Committee For a Future with Children" is probably rather based in a Swedish context.
Botond173
4d ago
Agreed. Either way, what's important in the context of the discussion at hand is that this was hardly a case of a pretty young woman getting particularly targeted and killed for political reasons.
Botond173
4d ago
I’m more or less familiar with the official/mainstream theory. I was wondering why ThenElection disbelieves it and what his alternative theory is. I guess my comment was poorly worded.
Botond173
5d ago
Is your argument that women instinctively escape from violent men, presumably into the embrace of nonviolent men? Because I've never seen evidence of this.
Botond173
5d ago
I'd say most of the cases that get interpreted as online radicalization, online bullying / cyberbullying and online stalking/harassment / cyberstalking in mainstream media are in fact real-life phenomena, and the extent to which they have an online component is of secondary importance. That is, the victim/target is normally affected by the actions and words of people he or she personally knows, and interacts with in real life.
This seems to echo in a series of comments left by another regular visitor on a social conservative blog in 2012 (emphasis mine):
More options
Context Copy link