OP’s a woman, so from this single garden-variety independent sample this subject is 100% female-originated.
But there are also a lot of atheist manosphere types who get REALLY upset about female promiscuity.
They do, but I would postulate that they’re more upset that the women aren’t being promiscuous with them, than with the concept.
The outsized concern for promiscuity is itself female-coded. The general hostility to sex also. Compare the sex lives of greek gods versus your guy and his mom. Or gays versus lesbians. Christianity is basically the lesbian of religions.
no we just have a lot of women and christians.
Trinidad: Half the people are indian, half the gdp is oil and gas
Seychelles : island micronation(120k souls) living off tourism
St kitts: island femtonation (50k)
The poorest country is Arab (South Sudan).
The south sudan massacres, war and subsequent independence was fought between the muslim arab north and the mostly christian non-arab south. The name Sudan comes from the Arabic bilād as-sūdān or the "Land of the Blacks".
Yeah that’s what I’m saying, intrasexual competition, gossip, envy and jealousy have always fueled human conflict. Religions then built on and justified that primal pettyness, look at the behaviour of the gods in greek mythology. Christianity is particularly attuned to women’s petty intrasexual concerns, with its emphasis on female promiscuity.
Their opinion is not the deciding factor. Or rather, their acquiescence was paid for. If their job was made more difficult by rov scam’s antics (hypothetically approved/forgiven by the gay billionaire), then the problem is merely that they did not realize what their job entailed and so were not paid enough.
It’s allowed under the good-fun exception. Would the victim really object to the crime? Most weddings would only be improved by a crash from some local notables.
Or it’s the other way around, and christianity arose as the spiritual justification for this intrasexual bitching, which no doubt predates it.
I heard the criticism that Kurosawa was himself just copying foreigners and too western, true traditional japanese cinema would be three frames per hour of a tea ceremony.
had long known of the Reddit midwit, clickbait anti-American, hipster propaganda factoid that Sergio Leone's seminal A Fistful of Dollars
I mean, Leone is italian. It’s kind of amazing that europeans took a quintessentially american genre and produced a slew of parody-homage-knockoffs that were, for my cheap european money, better than the real thing.
Ultimately, the original inventor does not matter as much as the quality of the end product. It’s the Tarantino Versus Welles dichotomy. Tarantino may just be recycling old B-movies: but they were mediocre, while his are eminently watchable. Orson Welles gets a lot of credit for innovative techniques, but his movies aren’t compelling. I'm sorry, The Third Man is objectively a better movie than Citizen Kane, history of cinema be damned.
judges tend to take a dim view of the tactic of taking a lower paying job to decrease child support.
It used to be that the child would go to the parent who can afford him, and the deadbeats of either sex would just not get guardianship. If you can’t manage to take care of yourself, you shouldn’t take care of children. Makes sense to me.
Then the justice system was bent precisely so that the economically useless parent, usually the woman, could extract resources from the productive one.
And now the conversation goes : “But I don’t want to get exploited by a deadbeat!” “Wow you’re such a deadbeat.”
The air india jet was, as the pilot kids say, low energy. And it is easier to topple a tall thin building than a short stocky one.
Anti-porn feminists have been looking for evidence of harm from the inside for ages.
Conservatives have plenty of studies they use to support their other arguments, it just happens anti-porn is among the least empirically supported of all their positions.
Then bring those porn studies that are comparable to tobacco harm studies. Are you going to die early because of porn? Has science re-discovered that it does indeed make you blind?
A handful (effectively: 1-2 that are very close to each other) of ideologies dominating the mass-media ecosystem seems to fit right into my model, and "dissidents" buying a SocMed is far from a contradiction.
-
Imaginary bailey of 100% strong mind control : everything is controlled by one ideology, no dissenting centers of power. People have no independent minds, they just receive the transmissions the elites send, when they deem something not worth censoring.
-
Imaginary bailey of 0% mind control: people vote and buy only in accordance with their intimate conviction, deep desire, and pure, untainted knowledge. you cannot buy any influence at all. censorship never works. The centers of power perfectly represent the ideological population distribution.
-
The mottes, our true positions: golden middle of enlightened centrism, haggling on 20-80% mind control. Land of on the one hand, on the other hand.
This conversation is each of us arguing against a bailey the other doesn't actually wish to defend.
For example, it would be silly to try to represent the population's beliefs 1-to-1 (using a stringent form of ideological AA) in, say, hollywood, or newspapers. Is this not obvious? It's one thing to occasionally force a woman or a conservative in to make sure there's a little bit of everything, and prove they are not excluded, it's another to force equal representation. AA devolves into completely unmeritocratic fixed roles for everyone, without regard for ability or interest: the 8th employee must be a 30 yo black creationist, 9th a 50 yo redhead anti-vax woman, etc.
I don't think I heard anyone tell me they want to reward the company for a particularly well-made ad
If you see attractive people on a boat drinking Trademark, or a 4x4 Trademark driving though the wilderness on TV, it can move you, and if so, it does add to your enjoyment of the product later. Thank you michael jordan for making me feel like michael jordan when I put on these michael jordan shoes.
It can also inform you of a sale or a new product that alone can meet your peculiar needs, but that's standard ad apologism.
The deeper question is whether the ad can just totally subvert your 'true wishes', or if it is limited in its effects, can even in some cases bring you something positive, or reveal your true wishes. The same goes for political influence: I don't think you can convince people of anything, censor anything, buy any idiot the presidency. There are limits to what this mind control/nudging can achieve.
I for one don't think we have a neat equal distribution of ownership of mass-media between various ideologies.
Who promised you this? I wouldn’t even want it that way.
if mind control doesn't work, why would you say so much money is being spent on marketing?
Politically, or, consumerismically? Compared to the power of the citizen and the GDP he controls through the state, the political ads and lobbying don’t represent that much money.
For consumption goods, I know everyone thinks ads don’t work on them, but they mostly don’t work on me (also, adblock). For everyone else, they enjoy ads, it’s like good art to them, they’re more than happy to reward companies that evoke such joy with their purchases.
Do you disagree with the theory that Elon Musk buying Twitter was a pivotal moment for Trump's second run?
Can't have hurt him. The point is, 'mind control theory' in its strong form, is contradicted by dissenters buying a piece of media to fight back against the mind control. There's the sarcastic quip about 'build your own banking system'- well, him, and through him, people who agree with him, did buy their own media system.
Sure, they can't control the entirety of society at will, 100% of the time, but engineering does not require 100% accuracy, just predictability.
Are we just haggling about the price? I could just as easily say "Sure, you can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all the time....".
But what they ultimately wanted to achieve, more than anything else they ever wanted before, was preventing Trump from getting elected, twice, and they failed at that. In that light, mind control does not work at all. I don't think HBD or lab leak theory or grooming gangs or trans scepticism or any other dangerous idea has been successfully suppressed by information control.
There’s this contradiction at the heart of anti-establishment movements – according to their own central myth, they are doomed rebels against the all-powerful, entrenched evil forces of the establishment, the cathedral, the megaphone, the elites, and so on. So when they win, as they often do because it’s a popular message/beloved fiction trope, they have a dog caught the car moment. In reality they were always more powerful than they thought they were.
Holocaust denial is not about maintaining the moral righteousness of nazism, but its essential myth of the all-powerful jew. 'it didn't happen, but it should have'. Or 'according to my ideology: it should have, and it couldn't have.'
Neither side is willing to let it “just be a fight.”
I don’t understand this perspective. Obviously the fair fight is Hamas/palestinian army versus IDF, and Hamas are the ones who refuse to fight it. Therefore, the blood of civilians is entirely on Hamas’ hands.
If throughout history's wars the defeated party's army said ‘we’re not surrendering, we’re just going to do terrorism in civilian clothes now’, genocide would be the routine consequence.
I for example am leaning towards kicking all the Islamic refugees out of Europe to the extent achievable under the law
That’s only common sense. But what if they refuse to leave, try to stab your women and children every chance they get, and teach their children to stab? At some point, you’ve done enough to preserve their lives, and the subsequent human rights infractions/butchery is not your fault. It’s like mowing down some japanese with sticks who refuse to surrender. That’s not murder.
Huh, okay, looks like childhood leukemia really took a beating these last decades. Yay science.
Still, most docs spend their time talking to old people and recommending negative EV surgeries.
I may have been a tad harsh. Unlike farmers, who went from useful to parasitic, doctors improved over time. They used to kill people, drink their blood and feed on their suffering, now some of them occasionally manage to help humans.
Same thing. They soothe parents who panic and hold the hand of leucemics.
It’s the hansonian argument about doctors being more about showing people care than producing a substantial increase in qaly. And the background modern increase in qaly caused by clean water, vaccines, antibiotics, which you don’t need all those doctors for.
Tin canned, freeze dried, etc.
I would view subsidized farmers like an army: in good times, a waste of money, but in bad times, essential to the sovereignty of the nation.
That’s what they want you to think. This lobby group is so powerful because it has arguments tailored for all kinds of people. To greens they say they preserve the ecology, the meadows and all the little birdies. To conservatives, the character of the land, the connection to ancestors, they eat that shit up. To social democrats they emphasize the need to safeguard their jobs from the destructive forces of the market. And to greys, they play the strategic food reserve card.
but unlike food and trained fighters, you can stockpile petrochemicals just fine
Why can't you store food? Let’s do some back of the envelope math: CAP budget is 55B/year, with germany shouldering 25%, that’s 13B, that’s €0.45 per german per day in subsidies.
That’s imo a large underestimate of alll the subsidies they get. Most peasants I know build a house on their land, which they can then sell for a large profit, because normal people do not get to build a house on cheap agri land without tons of red tape. When a piece of my grandparents’ land was declared constructible, it was like winning the lottery to them. Plus the tariffs and all the protections they get and all the problems those protections cause. Like the japanese customer who pays to subsidy the rice, then pays a higher price for it, then pays again to buy some other rice that gets destroyed to compensate WTO partners. A significant share of EU-US trade disputes, like every trade dispute, are caused by farmer lobby duels.
So let’s double the estimate to 90 cents/day/person. I think you can feed a man for about 9 cents/day on non-perishable (conserves and such) goods. Because you can feed a man for one day for 5 cents in vegetable oil, and that’s retail. So if we cut the subsidies and went with my strategic pemmican plan, after about 10 years we’d have 100 years of food for everyone. Talk about food security. And then we’d enjoy our extra euro per day. And that’s assuming we all forget how to farm once the subsidies subside and we are henceforth incapable of producing a single beet.
Stew Peters, Evan Kigore)
No idea who those people are. Gee, you're awfully well informed about the goings on in the white nat scene. I would think your doctorate in far right media studies would be done by now. Why don't you get a job instead of posting your nazi slop?
- Prev
- Next
I’m trying to avoid double-dipping of people’s unpleasantness veto, that’s all. If you agree to do something for pay, you’ve sold it. You can’t use the veto to avoid the unpleasant part of the job later.
This sounds like some HR bullshit on some corporate website. Just pay me. I'll judge how loyal and supportive you are, and I'll be, later. The kind of loyalty you're talking about has to be earned.
More options
Context Copy link