Getting married early and having children leads to poverty 90% of the time, iterate this enough and you will get a culture of not wanting to marry and have children.
Cohabiting makes your cost of living go down, having children makes your cost of living go up.
It's a better solution to the problem of evil than most.
All your link says is that the EU has 'agreed' that frozen Russian assets should be sent to Ukraine. But they can't actually figure out a way to do this for fear of legal/reputational risks. Nations will understandably have some difficulty trusting the EU with their money if the EU can just take it and give it away as they please. It's just talk until they do it.
The problem is that appropriating the interests on frozen assets is likely illegal and russians will eventually be able to win that money back in court. Since the EU isn't actually in custody of the frozen assets, its member states are, and mostly Belgium specifically is, what really happened is that the other EU member states effectively voted a "Make Belgium Pay" bill, to which Belgium is currently objecting.
I'm curious how this is going to end, in the EU we've been overdosing on luxury beliefs for a long time, is this the point we come back to reality?
everyone hates AI
Is that why ChatGPT has been the most downloaded app worldwide for almost every month of 2025?
Apparently there will be a vote coming out to release even more, but the docs released so far have been negative for Trump's claims to be innocent of the whole matter.
So far I haven't seen anything that would prove this. They are however optically negative for Trump. The only thing I find interesting about them is "why now?". The democratic party was in charge for 4 years and they were trying to take down Trump all along, why not release them earlier? Why not release them in 2024 to improve the chances of victory of Kamala?
Releasing them now means they have the smallest effect they could have possibly had. Even waiting until 2028 would have had a greater effect.
Whenever you see an age of consent below 18 it almost always is actually accompanied by a number of caveats. Prostitution, pornography, age difference and the adult being an authority figure being very common variables to be taken into consideration.
I stand by my previous assessment that Fuentes isn't going mainstream, now or in the future. Fuentes political character arc is that he will come out as gay and go on a left wing podcast tour denouncing how toxic right wing ideology kept him in the closet.
Taking Eco's definition
This thing was invented by Eco because he was seething at Silvio Berlusconi's electoral victory and came up with the broadest possible definition of Fascism that would include his party. That's all it is, not a deep reflection of an intellectual on the nature of fascism but a knee-jerk reaction to an italian political party from the 90s.
How do you rate scenario 2 as more likely than scenario 1???
Israel needs western support to exist. Europe is going to become very muslim (and also very failed) in the next 100 years. In the US support for israel rests on three pillars: jews, defense contractors and red heifer evangelicals. The evangelicals are dying, the jews are quickly coming to see themselves more as liberals than as jews. On the other hand jews map to white and palestinians map to brown in the woke mind.
Within the next two generations israel needs to either resolve the problem fully, somehow, or find a new partner or they lose.
The number of married men with children that eventually go gay say this is at the very least not universal.
The Democrats lost young men to the party of, “hold still for your mugshot before you watch Riley Reid take her clothes off.”
Defending porn would actually be a good issue for Democrats to take up if they had any hope to be credible about it. The problem is that there's too much history of feminists attacking porn (don't bring up sex positive feminists, the difference between them is that sex negatives are against making porn and sex positives are against men watching porn), too much history (10 years plus) of left wingers agitating against busty women in videogames and too much history of democrats loving heavy handed content moderation.
Pornhub lost mastercard and visa in 2020 due to an article written by a journalist who wanted to use that as a springboard for his gubernatorial run, as a democrat.
Speak for yourself, I want my output to be part of the machine god.
This. Yudkowsky and his followers are just worried they won't get their preferred version of the afterlife, that instead of techno-heaven-where-everyone-is-an-angel-living-in-the-clouds they will get techno-apokatastasis
They believe that "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", despite the fact that such term came from nowhere, has no author, and in addition all great free speech thinkers argued precisely the opposite
You made me curious where this came from, so I tried playing with google search date ranges and the first instance I could find that isn't a spurious result is this https://askleo.com/how_do_i_block_people_from_finding_information_about_me_on_the_internet/ which google says was written in 2008. No attribution however it seems to cite it as a well known quote already.
It's fairly common for indian and chinese hiring managers to only ever hire connationals.
I'm not going to make a comprehensive argument for the existence of God
Fair enough, I therefore remain convinced that you would not be able to starting from that definition of initial state.
You brought up Feser earlier, I wonder what you've read of him. Five Proofs of the Existence of God provides five chapter-length proofs
This one. He has both problems: he relies on a rejection of actual infinites and also on a (non-)definition of causation that does not have referents.
Ok, how do you make an argument for the existence of god from this.
Ok, now formulate the rest of the argument using this definition of initial condition.
What is finite here? The number of robots and the lenght of time can all be infinite. You are objecting to "initial condition?"
Correct, you are implying that there is a beginning and the past isn't infinite.
By saying "If there is an infinite line of robots that all have an initial condition" you have introduced finiteness as an assumption, what classical theism does with this type of arguments is attempt to prove that this finiteness is logically necessary. The reason this worked in the past, but doesn't now, is because actual infinities were believed to be paradoxical.
To turn the tables, imagine if George Soros died
IMO there is a very important difference between someone dying (in an accident, of natural causes) and someone being murdered. In the second case you are walking a fine line between criticizing someone who died (ok) and celebrating political assassination (not ok).
That said my rules > your rules applied fairly > your rules applied unfairly, as always. Until cancellation is taken off the table as a viable weapon the equilibrium is always going to end up being that if you can use it you use it.
I agree with this.
I don’t think it’s any surprise that the debate debacle happened right after two back-to-back trips to Europe and a flight to the West Coast for a Hollywood fundraiser
Crazy that this explanation is being resuscitated. The first trip was on june 6th for d-day, to france. The second one on june 12th, to italy for g7. He returned to the US on the 15th of june. The debate was on june 27th, 12 days later. Nobody has 12 days of jet lag.
So you want to argue that god is contingently possible?
- Prev
- Next

Do you think there is a reason to believe it gets worse as women's labor participation increases? It was around 50% around the mid-century economic boom. Just look at the wage gap between men and women, it's actually fully explained by childbirth. There is no wage gap between women that have no children and men. Now take the wage gap, multiply it by 1.5 because she's going to have more children and amplify it because it's harder to find entry level jobs when you are old.
Having fewer children is a rational choice. If you want more children you have to find a way to make children not be so much of an economic burden (on women primarily but by extension also to married couples). "Oh I wish I could bamboozle all the women into being good Christians, then they would make more children" isn't going to cut it, that's not how the causality is running.
More options
Context Copy link