This one blew up recently during Tucker Carlson vs Pierce Morgan show: A UK woman who was battered by her boyfriend was sentenced for calling him a faggot in text message to her "friend" who reported her to police. The charge for texting the word faggot was "malicious communications offences". The boyfriend who obviously was not gay was not arrested. Pierce Morgan invited her to talk about it.
By the way, there are 12,000 arrest for online communication offenses a year in the UK. So there are plenty of examples.
I unironically believe all these statements are true. It doesn't take schizophrenia.
I do not understand how this is even a controversial statement. Look at Bush/Gore 2000 election, which was decided by margin of 537 votes out of 5.8 million for Bush in Florida and by 366 votes out of 572 thousand for Gore in New Mexico. I have utmost confidence that Bush won thanks to some type of cheating, which was enough to offset Gore's cheating. And it is not as if Bush was some unimpactful president. One can say that whole US history was changed thanks to electoral cheating.
The whole system incentivizes - and as the previous case shows - rewards cheating. It is no conspiracy theory to have priors in favor of cheating deciding the elections, especially if the margin was couple of thousand of votes in contested states.
I don't know, it feels like something changed with respect to speech between 2010 and 2020.
It is not only about free speech. During 1990s and early 2000s there was a huge discussion of how will the EU look like post Maastricht, labeled as Europe of Nations vs federal Europe - with the former being labeled as "eurosceptic" and latter as proeuropean of course. The eurosceptic side basically lost with 2007 Treaty of Lisbon. The new empowered EU beurocracy started churning regulation at breakneck speed - doubling the already burdensome regulation by 2024 so now majority of national laws are passes just to implement EU regulations. It now borders with comical, such as the latest EU Space Act which despite declining EU space programs boasts how it will bring about safe, sustainable and green space exploration or something silly like that. EU institutions and bureaucrats are unironically proud of EU being regulatory superpower, some of them really believe in how they are essential for regulating the whole world.
EU is basically a paradise for bureaucratic structures - the so called Deep State - with byzantine rules hiding responsibility behind layers and layers of structures and almost no real oversight. Just look at this simplified graph of EU institutions from wikipedia and keep in mind that each of this rectangles hides layers of equally byzantine rules of how they are constituted. I'd say that with EU institutions gaining more and more control, the whole thing is turning into something akin to ancient Chinese system of true bureaucracy or maybe something like late Soviet or post Deng and pre Xi system of collective leadership, where it was not dear leader, but party structures controlling the state.
Who is to say that men can take power back from women?
Men did that in the past, they are doing it right now and they will do it in the future. I literally used the Taliban example just from couple of years ago - just 0.5% of population of motivated men were able to do as they please. They are no weak dogs or birds. If anything, it is women who are powerless like that unless protected by other men.
Peasant revolts don't prove anything because (as you note) women are integrated into every part of society.
Yes, women are integrated into society in manner that men allow them to, in the same way men are integrated into society in a manner other men allow them. But it is always men and not women. That is the point.
My point is that while men as a whole could in theory do this, a man for the most part cannot actually do this because enslaving women is illegal.
It has happened in the past, it will happen in the future and it is happening now. That is why I used the example of Taliban. They were able to put all women behind veils, remove them from political power and bar them from education without any fuss. It is impossible for women to do it the other way around - there never was such an occurrence.
Furthermore, they would then have to directly commit a lawless act by chucking out their women's rights laws (and in many cases women's rights constitutional provisions) outside the constitutionally-prescribed mechanisms, and yet still maintain enough regard for those constitutions and the rest of their laws to not immediately degenerate into civil war over what other laws should be chucked out (or dictatorship, as "the military is supposed to uphold popular sovereignty, not do whatever the guy in the big chair says" is also part of respect for constitutions).
Men can change laws, so that lawless action becomes lawful. It happened in the USA at least twice - the revolutionary war as well as the civil war, and there were many close calls. It is not impossible that this will happen again in some shape or form, especially if the society seems to be keen on pissing off young men of fighting age. As for other western countries such as in Europe, to me this seems almost inevitable. The changes in population composition will almost inevitably lead to some conflict and political reshaping in upcoming decades. Then it will become apparent where the actual power lies.
Thought experiment: group A and group B live on an island together. Every member of group A has a big red button; no member of group B has such a button. If a day goes by with less than 10% of the buttons pushed, everyone who pushed a button has a heart attack. If a day goes by with between 10% and 95% of the buttons pushed, the island's volcano goes Krakatoa and everybody dies. If a day goes by with over 95% of the buttons pushed, group B are enslaved by group A. Does group A have any practical capability to use the buttons to enslave group B? No, not without some form of explicit co-ordination to make sure they all push the buttons on the same day. Even threats to push the button are empty without the ability to explicitly co-ordinate over 10% of group A.
It is not necessary to coordinate on such a scale. Taliban only has maybe around 50-100 thousand of warriors with upper limit of around 200 thousand - if various local militias are counted. That is around 0.5% of total population of Afghanistan at best, and they were able to push that button. There were many such cases in the past, where key men were able to completely change the course of history: be it coups by pretorians in Roman Empire, Mamluk slave soldiers overthrowing their Arab slavers in Egypt etc. All it takes is a minority of men willing to apply violence, while the rest of the men are just looking on and abstaining from the fight. And again - there was never such a case in history, where couple of thousand of female warriors were ever able to do anything close to that.
As usual, there is nothing new under he sun but specifically with Peak Oil, it was heavily influenced by popular book/manifesto The Limits to Growth published in 1972 which influenced The Club of Rome as part of the now ubiquitous messaging on global issues planetary emergency issues.
I see Peak Oil as part of what I'd mark as defense in depth and/or ideological deep battle doctrine. You see it used quite often in propaganda, where often contrary messages are constructed for different audiences. The general description is the old meme: it is not happening > yeah, it is happening but it is not a big deal > It's a good thing that it is happening > people against this happening are the real problem. Except it is constructed and promoted by propaganda at the same time to various groups, sometimes as a result of people not catching up to latest news, sometimes deliberately pushed at the same time despite logical contradiction.
Sometimes these messages mutate, but they stay the same. Or in case of Peak Oil it was just one example of caution against impossibility of "exponential growth", which is the backbone of leftist environmentalist "sustainability" messaging, all stemming from the original Limits to Growth idea. All of these are quite popular to this day.
Europeans are proud.
I am not European, I am Slovak. There is no European identity even after decades of astroturfing. If anything, you have something I would mark as "global" identity vs national ones. In the past this globalist identity was called as "western" identity or something similar. In fact local elites at least in Eastern Europe used this word quite a lot in condescending way toward their own population - just westernize already. These elites were similar to Russian aristocracy of 19th century - people self colonized into some supranational identity used to berate their backwards alcoholic underclass. This supposed "European" elite would be as satisfied in Berlin or Paris as they would be in Sydney or Dubai or Tokyo and of course in New York or Los Angeles - as long as it caters to their sensibilities.
In fact with Trump election it was interesting to see how this supposed "Western" vocabulary collapsed - what is The West without USA? With USA throwing a wrench into the edifice, they just have "West" replaced by "European". But there is no such a thing, European identity has nowhere near such a power, it does not have the same legitimacy that USA and "The West" had during 20th century.
But, the Europeans appear to despise Trump and his politics. Even blue city democrats don't hate Trump as much. Eventually, the hostility becomes grating.
This is nothing new. "European" intelligentsia hated US political representation with vengeance for ages. People from Europe love their stories of redneck Americans, they watched with glee whenever any riot or scandal happened as it soothed their ego. The problem is, that at least in the past there was something to that as late as 80s/90s. French were proud of their cinematography, Germans were proud of their engineering and Scandinavians were proud of their social progress while they slowly imbibed US culture and systems. As of now, all these things are in the past. At least since 2000s all EU countries are stagnating. Manufacturing went to shit, cultural influence is overwhelmed not only by USA but also by Asian countries. There is no NOKIA or Ericsson anymore and there is no new innovative industry in Europe.
What remains is basically cultural heritage - architecture and so forth which turns Europe into one large open-air museum. But even this is not exactly coded as elite thing to do with self hatred around religion and colonialism. There are some paradoxes going on with some channels such as this one, trying to promote European achievements. Which is fine, but if you ask me, it would seem to represent more something like Eric Zemmour's candidacy speech as opposed to current EU elite progressive consensus. It is right-wing and nationalist coded.
So in short what if "Europeans" you talk about hate Trump. They hate themselves and their culture with the same intensity, if not even more.
I agree with you. In the past we saw successful revolts, coups or revolutions. We saw peasant revolts, slave revolts, race revolts, class revolts or religious revolts. There never was a single violent feminist revolt in the history of mankind.
This is actually an internal critique of feminism with their obsession with power dynamics. Specifically that the notion of gender equality is laughable. Women simply do not have access to force, which is the purest application of power there is. Therefore ipso facto women are simply never going to be equal to men, because they rely on men to provide them with rights. Again, this is not negation of women having access to other forms of power such as persuasion, sexuality etc. It is also not an ought claim, that women ought not to have rights or anything like that. It is just a statement that as a class, as a collective, women simply lack this ability to enforce their own rights and thus they can never be equal.
I think this is a no-brainer. For instance if a parent shares his credit card with his child and he grants the child ability to spend on anything he wishes as he himself can, then the child is still not going to be equal, even if it seems that he has the same autonomy. Because parent can cut off the access to the credit, while the child can never do the same. The child can be a very good manipulator, he can be very vicious, but it does not change the fundamental truth of ontological inequality of the child being dependent on his parent for his perceived autonomy.
Again, it is feminists who created the gender dichotomy of men vs women, with men being the oppressors and equality as the end state. My main point is that sex based dichotomy is very, very different from other types of arbitrary dichotomies such as class, race, religion etc. Women are inferior when it comes to application of force, so they are never going to be equal using their own logic - which is preoccupied with power dynamics. In fact, many people are perplexed by this very narrow feminist view of history as battle of sexes. There are other views even discarding intersectional analysis of race, class etc. For instance a view, that men and women are not in opposition for power, but that they cooperated to overcome hurdles of nature, developing division of labor for common flourishing based on their different ontologies. The whole notion of sex being one of the intersectional axis of oppression is also very strange, as it has a completely different dynamics - every man has a mother and every women has a father. The experience is different from other dichotomies and differentiations, where the segregation can be much more pronounced.
Personally, it is not in my nature to wage some useless gender war. But if such a war comes to my doorstep by misguided people, I know how it will end.
Sure, those poor slobs cannot hold water to famous Sadie Winters. "Her" luck was that she was created in a few minutes by famous producer Rick Beato as part of CBS report on AI music. She now features in youtube music and has her own Spotify track. I guess this luck and nepotism means, that she is better artist than vast majority on Spotify.
I agree, this seems to me a perplexing point to focus on. For instance the US used delay-action bombs specifically to target rescuers and firefighters trying to put out fire in burning cities during WW2 and beyond - some of those bombs are active to this day in Germany. As of now you can go and watch similar tactics being used in Ukraine war, where you have literal videos of drones bombing wounded, kneeling and praying soldiers, you have videos of double-tapping tanks and APCs including soldiers seeking refuge under such vehicles and more.
Double-tap operations were famous under Obama, where drone strikes targeted either rescue operations or even funerals of terrorists. But maybe this is the critique? Arguably Hegsegh is stupid and he should have done Obama style duble-tap operation, where the military waits for rescue vessel picking up the drowning terrorists only to bomb them again or maybe bomb attendees at their funeral or hospital visitors? The famous sniper tactics of purposefully only wounding the target and letting him alive as bait to kill medics and other valuable targets of opportunity.
I think that @Rov_Scam has a point - one example is Spotify. According to this article, 80% of artists on Spotify have fewer than 50 monthly listeners, and only around 50% of tracks were played more than 500 times. So in that sense, there already exists more music almost nobody ever heard of, that you could conceivably listen to in your lifetime even in specific subgenres. And yet it did not move the needle too much for established artist.
There's also the uncompensated Emotional Labor women perform in their personal and professional lives that aren't captured in misogynistic hate-facts involving trivia like number of working hours or deaths from workplace injuries.
I always found the argument for "emotional labor" of women quite strange. If anything, intuitively it is women who are known to be more likely to express their emotions, complain and so forth. In fact I'd say that men have to do more unsolicited and unpaid emotional labor, due to them having to endure nagging and gossiping of their female colleagues and wives.
georgioz
8d ago
I object to coercion and restricting people's freedom, even freedom to make bad choices, so I am not going to subscribe to "We should make women do what's best for them" even if I really did believe it's what best for them and not motivated by self-interest.
Sure, maybe we can start by reverting the nudge theory that is now hugely in favor of women. Remove women as a protected class, there is no need for it. This could right away lead to many egalitarian policies, including things like equalizing payments for things like healthcare consumption, social security consumption and other things that they accrue by virtue of having more cushy jobs and living longer. We can push for real equality in terms of judicial decisions especially in family courts that hugely favor women and many more.
Just by doing that, you can incentivize more healthy dynamics between sexes when both of them can more appreciate what each does for another. There are some experiments already - e.g. since 2018 when Kentucky equalized child custody after divorce to 50/50, the divorce rate fell above the norm. I'd predict that the overall impact of all these policies would be quite dramatic.
georgioz
8d ago
Who said this?
I did not exactly hear about it in context of Germany, but it was an official policy towards Austria since 1943 that started from Anschluss and beyond. As far as I understand, this is to large degree a myth as Austrians supported Nazis in equal numbers to that of pre-anschluss Germans. Heck, Austrians had fair share of high-profile Nazi leaders including Final Solution architect Adolf Eichmann, who was raised in Linz since age of 8 and who Austrian Nazi since 1932 and many other war criminals leading concentration camps and so forth.
Austrians embraced it especially immediately after WW2 with and they used this myth to refuse any reparations toward holocaust survivors up until 1995.
That's not how inflation works. Inflation has already taken that into consideration.
Not it does not. Inflation measures so called "basket of goods" and their price. The problem is, that goods and services inside the basket change a little bit from year to year, plus there are qualitative changes from decade to decade. For instance as of 2025, the price of internet access plan is part of basket of goods and services incorporated into inflation. There was nothing like that in let's say 1950. How could you possibly account for this? The same goes for qualitative change - TVs in 1950 are different from TV in 2025, just measuring the dollar price of TV does not provide the full account of change in quality baked in the price, these are not the same things.
By the way, there is a theoretical framework in economics around this, called Arrow-Debreou model specifically the subsect raleted to time, space, and uncertainty. To simplify - the "same" goods in different time and place are not the same goods. A bottle of oxygen in your local hardware store is completely different good from a bottle of oxygen near the peak of Mount Everest. The difference is so stark, that you cannot just average the price or something like that. This is a long known issue in econometrics.
georgioz
9d ago
There is a point to be made about technology and the comforts, others have pointed out the obvious ability to hire people for that much money back then
This is an old "problem", wittily described by a quote attributed to Agatha Christie
I couldn't imagine being too poor to afford servants, nor so rich as to be able to afford a car.
Consider the following thought experiment, courtesy of Scott Summer
His name is Scott Sumner, not to be confused with Larry Summers or any other economist with a similar name. I followed Scott before he moved his blog to substack blog between let's say 2010+ up until he switched to more politics. I really like Scott's economic analysis together with his pal Nick Rowe with his now defunct Worthwile Canadian Initiative.
Otherwise I agree with him on the point. Inflation is a good way to look at things short term - let's say 2023 vs 2024 with several caveats. But it is wholly inadequate measure comparing different time periods when basket of goods completely changed in their composition and quality.
There's the classic trope that makes an appearance, where a Western girlboss obediently throws on a headscarf and covers herself up to appease Muslim men.
Yep, I remember one such a case, when the first all feminist cabinet in the world from Sweden dutifully donned hijabs while visiting Iran.
Bit of a trick in this one. What are 'male responsibilities?'
I'd posit:
Go out hunting and bring back meat for the tribe. If a rival tribe attacks, take up arms and repel them, with deadly force if needed. If natural disaster strikes, rescue as many as possible and protect from as much damage as possible. Do the heavy lifting to build things/rebuild after disaster.
I think your list is too anachronistic. In general, the role of men is to produce, refine, distribute and protect resources. All of these roles are still held by large majority of men, ranging from mining, farming, construction, infrastructure maintenance, police, army, manufacturing and virtually all the actually important things in the meat space. All of these things rely heavily on men with the participation ranging from 80% to 99%. And even then, the actual numbers are heavily obfuscated by specific support roles women do in these fields anyway. The same goes for STEM fields except medicine, especially engineering and other tasks. Despite all the feminist progress, the general gender roles did not change - men still do construction and police work, women are still nurses and care for children as teachers and nannies and they deliver nice sandwiches to men with a forced smile as waiters and so on. They perform similar jobs as they performed in 18th century, only with some modern systems muddling the waters.
In fact it is a very common argument around in manospohere: if tomorrow all the women disappeared, remaining men would do just fine until they die of old age. If it was the other way around, women would starve and die en masse within weeks or months. The society is still one huge resource transfer from men toward women and children - if women decide to have them that is - as it was centuries ago. But it is now hidden under jargon of rights and political process and largess created by cushy positions in government bureaucracy and similar jobs.
As an example - it is "easy" to be a divorced mother, if government forces men to still do their part of the marriage contract of supporting the family financially in form of alimony and child support, while women have no duties toward their ex husbands. In one sense seeing women in such a power seems like matriarchy, but she still relies on men for everything - be it her ex husband, or overwhelmingly male police force for protection of her person and her legal entitlements. I heard quite a convincing argument that this is still a patriarchy - women appeal to men to provide and protect them as usual, it is just that the modern patriarchy is benevolent enough to grant them their illusion of power and laughable notion of "equality".
But it is still an illusion - just because the patriarchy is benevolent toward women and oppresses fellow men, it does not mean it is not one such. Men always oppressed other men under patriarchy. Heck men oppressed other men in favor of women such as in Sparta, where women formed their own hugely powerful class of magnates called heiresses by inheriting wealth of their deceased husbands, or many other nations, where men risked their lives in war of conquest and subjugation only to bring slaves and jewels to entertain their mothers, wives and daughters. That is nothing new.
The thing is that if men collectively, or even in majority minority refuse to participate anymore, the illusion dissolves within days. We saw it recently after Afghanistan withdrawal, when Taliban warriors just leisurely waltzed in and subjugated women without any fuss, literally laughing at the notion of women's political rights.
Women are collectively incapable of putting up any resistance if men refuse to do so for them. There was never any female Spartacus waging war of liberation with her fellow Amazonians against oppression. All women can do is whine and appeal the patriarchy to entertain doing something about their position.
georgioz
13d ago
Just my experience, but I've found if you go "above and beyond", you're not going to be recognised or even thanked. Hey, you want to do extra free labour for me? Great, go right ahead, dummy!
I have seen this argument from people in real life and also on the internet and to be frank, there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the employee-employer relation, especially lack of knowledge of being put in shoes of your direct manager. The main counterargument is this: what is the alterntive? Just doing your job?
I lead people and if there is a time for promotion discussion, what is supposed to be an argument for promotion?
Look georgioz, I know I have average results when it comes to my work, but it was because I was not paid. I have a huge potential, but I will only show it if you promote me.
Hell no. You can be promoted only if you show that you have skills worthy of that position, otherwise it creates a load of issues inside the team. I have had people with this kind of mercenary attitude inside my team and in my experience it is always one-sided. They ask for extra money for extra work, but they are often not prepared for salary cut if they are subpar for whatever reason - health, personal issues or maybe even because it was just calm month or anything like that. Of course there are mercenary positions like that such as sales, various contractors or workers in legal field who literally bill manhours or who have large variable part of their salary and who have to work for every single cent they can provably earn.
But this is not the case for regular positions such as IT admin or accountant etc. There are some unspoken rules: if you are accountant, it is implicitly understood, that there will be more work around quarterly earning reports or when taxes are due. If you are in IT, it is understood that you need to put more when a new system is being implemented or when some security crisis happens. This is compensated by less work on regular workday in summer let's say.
It is also common sense. A manager has other things to do than babysit everybody who bitches that he had to stay at work because customer call took 10 minutes longer after their shift ended and who asks for extra overtime and who bitches over that injustice for next week to everybody around him or some such - while of course not mentioning when the manager let him leave earlier to pick up his kid last week because his wife was stuck with something. It is just stupid busywork, I don't have time for such powergames. There should be some basic relationship that smooths over these kind of fluctuations without having constant excel sheet tally of who owes what to whom. It is also likely that such a person will show the same behavior toward his colleagues, not providing necessary support unless specially motivated. It is just not worth it.
Oh, of course the usual battle of who used it first, like with the woke, and if it is endonym or exonym. Whatever the case, the term was a global trend with Chinese lying flat or Great Resignation during pandemic when people left their work for pandemic relief and other issues. It was also a time of huge popularity if /r/antiwork subreddit.
But in the end I do agree with you, there is nothing new here. Since the time memorial, there were regular punch the card people, there were always passively aggressive and dissatisfied employees with some sort of vengeance against their employer and of course there were "go above and beyond" workaholic employees. There were always conflicts between these groups where quiet quitters despised workaholic udarniks for raising quotas of production for the rest of them and all of that. Which is kind of the point I wanted to convey to the OP - his Dilbert fantasy of how everybody hates their job is not something that is to be expected.
To a lot of people, especially those who deny HBD, there seems to be a complete lack of connectivity between real world actors doing things that drive forward history and history itself. It's like they see history as a movement independent of people. That it was preordained or inevitable that certain developments would happen at certain times.
It does not have anything with regards to HBD, it is more related to Hegelian philosophy, or one could even call it a religion. Hegel was the most influential philosopher of the 19th century who integrated older philosophers like Schiller and Rousseau into his concept of History - the concept where the history is a progressive project of Hegelian dialectics, where people are only actors "discovering" the preordained path of how to abolish opposite concepts into their new higher synthesis. Hegel himself was more of an idealist, where he saw his Geist as the moving force ranging from Weltgeist through Zeitgeist and Volksgeist. In his view the great men of history are products of their Zeitgeist - they are the ultimate incarnation of their era who move the history forward into another revolution, they personalize and enable the synthesis of higher level of Geist in an inevitable march of progress. While I would not say that Hegel's philosophy is explicitly racist, it is also not not-racist. It is absolutely possible that the forces of history will obliterate races, ideologies, religions and basically anything else in lieu of progress. It may not be necessary, but in this philosophy the end justifies the means - what if billions need to perish for progress, if it will bring more progressive society for untold trillions.
Of course Marxism is an offshoot of Hegelianism, he just flipped the script from idealism to materialism. Heck, Karl Marx himself popped out of Young Hegelian movement so of course his philosophy incorporates many of Hegel's concepts including dialectics, now called Dialectical Materialism, Hegel's concept of History which Marx turned into his focus on class struggle stemming from material conditions and his historical stages toward Communism and many more. But I'd also argue that OG Marxism is not against HBD or racism, similar to Hegel, these concepts are tangential to the true forces of History. It is only the more modern interpretation where racial oppression was added to the whole edifice, often on top of class oppression. Marx himself was extremely racist - at least from modern moral stance - approvingly quoting Trémaux theory that the common Negro type was a degeneration from a quite higher one in his letter to Engels in 1866, probably spurred by the fact that his son-in-law Paul Lafargue was of creole origin an Marx had some nasty things to say about him in his letters. Although to Marx "defense", he was extremely nasty person to everybody around himself including his wife, children, parents and his best buddy Engels, so this should not be surprising.
This is nothing new at least for me, it is Havel's greengrocer problem all the way down. Majority of the CW stuff also comes down to this, especially related to corporate environment where people are softly pushed into wearing rainbow keychains or attend Women at X lectures etc.
But there is also something to be said for maintaining positive attitude toward your work in general. I dislike 24x7 grumpy whiners, who are just doom and gloom about everything, poisoning the well for everybody else. A company gives you a gift card as a present - oh my god, those stupid fuckers should have given cash instead. These people are sometimes pain in the ass to be around, in the end there is a time to stop whining, grit your teeth and just move forward.
Poisoning the well is now present quite explicitly with a new "trend" of so called quiet quitting - because of course everything is now a TikTok trend - which is basically just the idea of punching the card, doing what is necessary and come home to family or church or you garden or other hobbies where you self-actualize. You know, the thing most factory workers were doing for centuries. Except now, it is a life philosophy and some people see it as a mission in their life, it is their hobby they do when they come home from work. They expect to be hailed as a new Socrates or maybe even Karl Marx, awakening white collar class to their oppression and pointlessness of their work and achievements and everything. They think that Wally from Dilbert is a role model to be followed, where the goal is to become corporate ninja and sabotage the company as much as possible without getting caught, instead of a comical relief.
As with all things, everything in moderation.
For me it is a result of experience with Roma/Gypsies who came from around northern-central India. Despite six hundred years of presence in Europe, they still form permanent underclass of people living in the most filthy and disgusting conditions imaginable. When I see documentaries from India with rivers of trash, it is indistinguishable from our gypsy slums in Slovakia like Lunik IX, despite chasm of thousands of miles and hundreds of years. There were considerable migrations into Europe from all around the place - including barbarians like Bulgars or Hungarians etc. with strange customs and religions. But none of them live like that now. I do not know why gypsies are like that, but it is what it is.
I find it fascinating that western countries are willingly importing this population from country of origin, just to appease some sort of savior complex.
More options
Context Copy link