Crowstep
1d ago
That seems a bit 4D chess to me. 'Let's import so many dysfunctional third worlders that it destroys our left wing movements'. I think the explanation is smaller scale. Among elites, broadcasting comfort with foreign cultures and a lack of interest in crime or welfarism is an effective form of counter-signalling. 'I'm so rich that I don't need to worry about immigrants suppressing wages or raping my daughter'. Multiply that by the world western world and you get the situation that we're in now.
Crowstep
2d ago
My guy, can you tell me what it is about the Jews?
My vague understanding is that a bogeyman is needed to explain European failure at ethnocentrism. If we're being replaced and taken advantage of by hostile third-worlders, then saying 'we chose this because we are pathologically altruistic' isn't very satisfying to the highly race-conscious. In step the Jews, who 'made us do it'.
The explanation only works in America because the Jewish minority there genuinely is very influential through AIPAC. It completely fails to explain similar levels of outgroup preference in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the countries of Europe. Most countries in Europe have Jewish populations of roughly zero, because a certain 1930s dictator killed what Jews they had, and yet you still see even based conservative Belarus importing hundreds of thousands of cousin-marrying 'specialists' from Pakistan.
Crowstep
2d ago
Africa almost always means Subsaharan Africa. Carthage was a Phonecian (Lebanese) settlement. The more meaningful division between Europe and Africa isn't the Mediterranean, it's the Sahara.
Crowstep
3d ago
Getting married makes both men and women richer, because it allows them to share costs by living together and provides financial support if one spouse is in education or having a baby. Men who get married end up earning more than their unmarried peers in a way that studies suggest is genuinely causal.
Now of course having children does reduce earnings for the mother temporarily, that's obvious. But it's not as if it is permanent. A woman who gets married at 22 and has, say, 3 children over her 20s is going to end up richer than the same woman marrying the same man at 32 and having 3 kids, because they have both spent their 20s in more expensive singledom.
Crowstep
4d ago
How does one start a high ability career at age 30 after spending one's 20s having babies instead of going to school or building skills?
College degrees are mostly signalling, but even if you assume that they are a literal requirement for a professional career, they only take 3-4 years, putting our hypothetical woman at 21-22 years old.
At which point she can either alternate years between working and having kids, as is typical in the UK (women can take up to a year of maternity leave and still return to their old job). This is in no way incompatible with later career advancement. Or she can take 4-8 years and give up work entirely, before returning to the workforce in the same position as a new graduate. She'll be a few years behind her childless peers, but crucially she won't then need to interrupt her career in her 30s to have children. She'll have done the hard part while she's young and full of energy. Given that the average woman born today probably won't retire until she is 70, losing 5-10% of her working years to maternity really isn't a big deal.
And don't think I'm just speculating here. I'm literally describing a couple that I know in their mid-20s. Two young professionals who will go on to earn high salaries, and who will probably have four children (number two is due next year).
Crowstep
5d ago
It's worth mentioning that it is, in fact, possible for a woman to have above-replacement level fertility and a big significant career. If a woman marries at 20 and has four children, all of her kids will be in school by the time she is 30. The President of the European Commission has seven children, to give a real life example.
Early marriage is the secret sauce that allows us to put our best women to work and to pass on their genes.
The real problem is the extended adolescence of the modern elite.
Crowstep
5d ago
I'm not sure that's true.
What do you fear, lady?' he [Aragorn] asked. 'A cage,' she [Eowyn] said. 'To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire
Seems like she was interested in the glory of battle, not fighting because she was forced to by circumstance.
I always thought Eowyn was Tolkein's weakest character. Iron age aristocrat women didn't sit around demanding the right to kill and die like their menfolk. And the fact that she was only able to kill the Witch-king through a linguistic loophole is particularly galling.
Crowstep
12d ago
I think focusing on DEI and affirmative action is misleading. This college is talking about a change in the past five years. The US has had affirmative action since the 1970s, the expansion of higher ed started in the 1980s, grade inflation in high school since the 1960s. Some happened between 2020 and 2025 that drastically changed the competence level of the incoming cohort.
Crowstep
14d ago
I'm not claiming that jealous and envious are complete synonyms, I mentioned a distinction between them in my post.
I'm claiming that thoroughlygruntled's distinction is wrong. He's proposing a difference which could exist between them, but doesn't, and hasn't at any point in the hundreds of years that the words have been used.
Crowstep
14d ago
I'm more sympathetic to those, since they're being used for things that can pretty reasonably be infantalised.
Veggies on the other hand, drives me mad. A food group does not need a childish pet name.
Crowstep
14d ago
People tend to use them as synonyms (more often simply using jealousy for both terms)
If the average person uses a word to mean X, then the word means X, surely?
I've never heard of the distinction you're making, and apparently neither has the Cambridge Dictionary. Merriam-Webster says that they have always been used as synonyms, although jealous has the extra meaning of suspicious possessiveness.
Crowstep
15d ago
When your post started with 'humanity peaked in the 90s', I didn't think the reason was going to be that James Bond would need to learn too many languages these days, quite the curveball.
Crowstep
16d ago
Drowning in pussy, maybe not. But Indian men are not exactly known for their chastity.
Crowstep
16d ago
Because fat people are stupid. If they were smart, they would not be fat. It is easy not to be fat, so if you are fat, it is because you are too stupid, lazy and greedy not to be fat. Everyone knows this!
I assume this is a joke, because if not then something has been making us real stupid since the 1970s.
Crowstep
16d ago
“Most men in bio are short because they can’t get women, but because you’re tall I know you’re genuinely interested in bio”
Odd, as I'm not sure biology is known as a high-paying field that draws in short men (surely that would be finance or something) but not objectionable.
“Women at Oxford and Cambridge are better than Harvard and Yale because they know their job is to look pretty and get a rich husband”
If a woman finds herself surrounded by very intelligent, conscientious men, she'd be crazy to not try and marry one of them. I'm not the first person to realise this.
“There is a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges.. that’s why you have Latin lovers”
Definitely true. The link between vitamin D and testosterone is well-established.
“Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them”
Seems like a poor choice as a hiring manager. Why not take advantage of anti-fat prejudice and get talented fatties at a steal? But still not an earth-shattering revelation.
Crowstep
29d ago
Baggy jeans are pretty much universal among Zoomer women. They are just as ubiquitous as skinny jeans were on millennial women.
The worm will turn though, fashion will change, 'twas always thus.
Crowstep
29d ago
But yeah you should probably leave the UK it sounds awful there for a number of reasons.
That seems like somewhat of an overreaction, like Reddit advice threads that always conclude 'you should leave your boyfriend'.
I'm not going to quit my job, abandon my family and friends, sell my house and uproot my wife and child because the unemployed welfare system is too generous. As much as we moan, the UK is still one of the richest and safest countries in the world.
Crowstep
30d ago
When we talk about social welfare programs, what we're really talking about is insurance. You may say that you work hard, etc., etc. and will never need these policies, but that's about as ingenuous as saying that you're a really good driver and thus don't need liability insurance. You may say that the people who receive the greatest benefit from welfare policies pay the least into it, but how much you receive in insurance payouts is only loosely related to how much you pay in.
I think that's definitely a model of welfare that can be used to describe a high-trust society, but I don't think it's particularly accurate in defection-heavy, low trust societies that exist today. In the UK for example, half a million people between the ages of 16 and 24 have literally never worked (and are not in education). Their welfare payments are not insurance payouts for people who have paid in but who have fallen on hard times. They have never paid in, and they've been claiming from the day they were eligible. And of the entire working age population, a full 25% are on benefits.
I'd be fine if a had a literal insurance system of unemployment, provided by the private sector and which people had to pay premiums to receive. What we have is a simple transfer from the (shrinking) productive part of the population to the unproductive part, and we pretend it's an insurance system.
Crowstep
1mo ago
I think looking outside the West is a good way to approach this. Clearly it is not simply a case that women in the workplace = the end of objectivity but there does seem to be something of an interaction between a high female percentage in a field, WEIRDness and identity politics that leads to the negative outcomes the author talks about.
A companion piece to this by the indomitable Louise Perry, Cancel Culture is Girl Culture.
Crowstep
1mo ago
It's a good thing we put at very few politicians on British banknotes - the row when feminists decide we need a woman and the only serious candidate is Margaret Thatcher would destroy confidence in the currency.
I'm not sure why they chose Jane Austen instead of Florence Nightingale. The woman who invented modern nursing vs a woman who wrote six books about thinly veiled author inserts finding rich husbands. My guess is that the civil servants who decide are more likely to be English Lit graduates than nurses.
My group of friends is very proactive an intentional about socialising. We all take turns to arrange/host get-togethers. Nobody is doing all the work.
More options
Context Copy link