domain:youtu.be
East Asian fertility. Taiwan, the PRC, Monaco, Hong Kong, Singapore
Why is Monaco, a European state, in the middle of this list of East Asian locales?
Western Cultural Appropriation of 4B has induced ample low-hanging-fruit counter-memes. Such as those to the tune of “Trump hasn’t taken office yet and he’s already stopping women from being whores” or “You have nothing! Nothing to threaten me with [dark_knight_joker.png]”.
4B is just 2B; actually, it’s just 1B. The 1B being sex. Thankfully so, to spare everyone the “2B or not 2B, that is the question…”-related references.
Without the prospect of sex, men generally would not care for dating women. Without the prospect of children and/or continued sex, men generally would not care for marriage (perhaps jokes on those men who get dead-bedroomed). Without sex, children will not result (aside from side cases like IVF or whatnot). Women striking by abstaining from 1) marriage, 2) dating, 3) birthing, and 4) sex would be just abstaining from 4) sex. Like how me hypothetically striking by abstaining from 1) dunking a basketball, 2) spiking a volleyball, 3) running 110m hurdles, and 4) jumping would be just me striking by abstaining from 4) jumping.
Given assortative mating, to the degree female Harris-supporters would be able to form a cartel to punish men by way of withholding sex, they’d with greater likelihood be punishing male Harris-supporters—not male Trump-supporters.
It’s funny how online women, despite their insistence that women have value beyond sex and being Birthing Persons, immediately turn to the threat of withholding sex and bearing children when push comes to shove. Their revealed opinions suggest they know that, if not for the bargaining chip of being gatekeepers of sex and children, their collective or individual negotiating power with men would plummet, perhaps to zero. Some part of them knows how their bread gets buttered.
It’s also funny how many women, despite supposedly being the empathetic sex, can’t fathom or are outright hostile to men having preferences, priorities, interests that don’t revolve around serving women.
Online women like to prattle about how men aren’t entitled to this or that, such as sex or female attraction (even, or especially, within marriage). However, they sure look like they feel entitled to men voting the way they want (in addition to other things like relationships/marriage if sex has already occurred, expensive engagement rings, lavish weddings, husband’s attraction regardless if she’s aged and/or gotten fat, to be wined and dined and taken on cUtE dates and vacations).
Women should look out for themselves and vote for their own perceived best interests. Men should be Decent Human Beings and vote for women’s perceived best interests.
My take: I think it's pretty clear that gender is a bigger divide than race. Men of all races voted for Trump in larger shares than women did, with Hispanic men even preferring him on-net.
I don’t think so. As the possibly apocryphal quote from Kissinger goes, “Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy.”
For example, apparently the percentage of US men who voted Trump was 55%, and it was 45% for US women. It was 57% and 13% (simulation scriptwriters are getting lazy…) for Whites and Blacks, respectively.
If women got Thanos-snapped away, I imagine a fair amount of young heterosexual men would be lost in life without the prospect of sex and later children. Life for the modal man would be more boring without the thought of the next chick you might bang, the children you might eventually have: It’d be grey, drab, and dreary. At least in Children of Men, one could still could get laid.
If American Blacks and Latinos got Thanos-snapped away, it’d be a great increase to the quality of life for White and Asian Americans. Disproportionate sources of violent crime and net-lifetime-tax consumption gone. Living in a “good school district” would be less of a concern, as would worrying if your grandmother will get randomly punched in the face. Entire neighborhoods would be available as open real estate. The outlook of White and Asian Americans would immediately become safer and richer.
Well, I just disagree with you. I am not talking about utilitarian calculations about the value of a Michelangelo vs. the value of some random person, I'm talking about the equivalence you keep insisting on making between women and toilet paper, which you're doing just to be provocative. If that is your mindset, that you literally regard them to be in the same category (disposable commodities that are of value depending on abundance and your need), you can argue all you like that you don't "hate" women, but I don't think women would be wrong to see it otherwise.
MGTOW had two categories. Men who had genuinely been burned hard by women (eg divorce rape, abuse etc) and younger incel types that were being more performative. The first group were genuinely happy(er) being alone, in the same way I've seen middle aged women be happier being alone after getting out of a bad marriage. The second group is a bit like this US based 4B crowd.
I'm betting the US 4B movement has a big overlap with things like: being physically unattractive, being overweight, claiming 'Feminist' as an identity, watching Korean Dramas, listening to K-Pop, being young, being college educated, being a Harris supporter (duh) and being 'very online'. I suspect that this is just post-election histrionics and will quickly be forgotten as bad orange man doesn't start goose-stepping his way to push a federal anti-abortion law.
I'm agnostic on the cause
What do you make of the idea that the government now fulfills most of the roles that a husband and the extended family used to fill, though in an inferior capacity? It seems similar to the way free streaming porn and thirst-trap simp-magnets have supplanted chasing girls in the lives of many young men, though also in an inferior capacity. In both cases, the choice used to be between a risky venture (dating/marriage) and simply having nothing at all (no sex/economic security/companionship). Now, there's a inferior choice on offer that requires way less risk/effort, so a lot of people "choose" that out of inertia.
Radical feminism/inceldom seem downstream from these massive changes in the sexual and romantic landscape. I can't imagine them arising in a state that did not have a massive welfare machine and lax sexual mores.
South Korea has a surplus of people relative to the economic opportunity that can be found there;
This doesn't seem right to me, as South Korea's fertility problems, and indeed those of most of East Asia's, are far more severe than in the West.
I think one explanation is that East Asian laborers are much better than Western ones.
One Japanese laborer at a convenience store is worth at least 2 and probably more like 3-5 American workers. In such conditions, it does create a race to the bottom for labor.
No doubt someone will chime in that the US has higher total factor productivity than Japan. That's true on a societal level. But the low wage workers in Asia are simply spectacular compared to their US equivalents.
We can see this in academics as well. Add a typical Asian kid to a typical American classroom and the Asian kid will excel due to a much higher level of effort. But when all the kids are Asian, it's a wasteful arms race. The smart kids still get the best grades, but everyone's working 3x as hard.
Asian societies are optimizing for worker drones, not for human flourishing. Without irony, they would be better off if they weren't such try hards.
they do not expect sex to be enjoyable
I doubt that. Pagans have written books and created monuments to enjoyable sex.
essentially maidservants for their husbands' families
Nuclear families are the primary cause for this going away. England was admittedly the earliest nuclear society, and avoided this problem all together.
It's an underdiscussed aspect of single-core mega-urban countries like SK. More than half the country lives within commute distance of Seoul. So you can't build physical distance between you and the in-laws. Being a larger and distributed country helps mitigate this problem.
They don't really expect their husbands to love or even like them
Can't compare across different historic economic settings. But, women must be given opportunities. Opportunities to work, to choose their spouse, to leave their spouse, to choose a profession.
To add to @SubstantialFrivolity's point, the message is that Trump's slightly less hawkish attitude towards the war in Ukraine will effectively lead to a massive defeat for Ukraine in the war. There's also the implication that Trump is less hawkish on Ukraine because he's literally in bed with dictators (a phrase you'll often see in American media), meaning that he actually loves and supports Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-Un. The idea is that Trump will align himself with Russia and China and North Korea, and maybe even take actual steps towards allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine, China to conquer Taiwan, and North Korea to conquer South Korea. Hence why those are the flags on the small balls being attacked by Russia, China, and North Korea joined by the United States.
It's not a good meme, and its message is ludicrous, but it's a memetic distillation of what warhawk Americans in the media think Donald Trump believes. Or perhaps more accurately, what their propaganda is intended to communicate.
It only works because the counterargument is less catchy than the quip and therefore loses according to Twitter debate rules. I don't think the women who are threatening 4B want, or claim to want, to "keep their legs closed", everything else being equal; their argument is instead that because of lack of abortion access, they can't open their legs safely, and therefore they will abstain from it, to their own detriment and the detriment of other beneficiaries of them opening their legs (men who want to have sex).
Compare something like "if you ban airbags, I will refuse to ride cars". Is it not obvious that "if you were capable of leaving your car keys in the drawer, airbags would not be your top 1 issue" would be a nonsensical retort?
Yes, I agree women are human. I just do not agree that being human gets you special exemption from the internal valuation process we all use to decide how much we care about a thing. If the devil came to me and gave me the choice that either Michelangelo's David gets crushed or a random human being named David gets killed I'd choose to save the work of art in a heartbeat. Inanimate objects can have higher value than average humans and recognising this doesn't mean you are demeaning these other humans, you are merely putting them in their rightful place in your personal hierarchy.
I'm actually in agreement with you that for most people they should value a sex partner higher than toilet paper (because toilet paper is easier to access than sex partners), all I'm saying is that we can think of edge cases where this is not true and it's not because the edge case is a woman hater, they are merely a personal utility maximiser and in their situation getting access to toilet paper brings them more value than access to yet another woman.
Are boomers actually moving sites? I figured they were still on Facebook.
Absolutely. My Trump-booster boomer aunt and her Xer daughter were on facebook, quickly realized Gab was just a bunch of loons, were on Parler for a while, I'm sure they have Truth Social now. These are red tribers from the red tribe, from a small town in the middle of flyover country.
The internet is real life now. Even the boomers have realized that.
I don't get your strike-through, a decrease in 30% absolutely could bring a lot of problems.
It's not just the fact that there's less people, the world has chugged along fine with far fewer, but also the population pyramid inversion. A lot of old people depending on few of the young is an issue that might get sorted out eventually, but it won't be pretty. (Assuming no AI saviour/doom)
You're just belaboring the equivalence. Obviously, if women are just commodities to put your dick in and produce babies (and I'm well aware there are people here who unironically believe this, though in your case it's hard to be sure whether you're serious or trolling) then yeschad. However, I would suggest it does not serve your purpose to act out the caricature of the dude who spawned the smarmy feminist "Women are human" meme.
Related: I went to a college with a high Asian student population, also around 20 years ago, and there was a long-simmering argument over the issue of Asian women dating white men (at a much higher rate than Asian men dated white women). The Asian women were most likely to defend this choice with some variant of "you don't own us", but if pressed or in a spicy mood they would also point out that white men almost never expect a 10/10 submissive housewife, or have a mother who expects a servile daughter-in-law, whereas a non-trivial percentage of Asian men do.
It all depends on how much one has of one thing vs the other because we value things based on marginal and not absolute utility. If someone easily has access to say 50 women for sex but no toilet paper (or substitutes like a bidet) then they are completely justified in valuing a deluxe 9 roll pack of toilet paper more than a 51st female sex partner. They are certainly justified in spending money they would never do on the 50th woman to ensure the toilet paper is kept in a warm, dry place because it's no great loss to them if this woman disappears for whatever reason like it would be if their toilet paper got all wet and unusable.
South Korea has a surplus of people relative to the economic opportunity that can be found there;
This doesn't seem right to me, as South Korea's fertility problems, and indeed those of most of East Asia's, are far more severe than in the West.
I'm partial to the explanation by Hanania that East Asians are hyper-conformists. This explains why their education system is a hellscape by those who experience it. Education is a zero-sum status competition, and practically everyone in their societies are competing. This also helps to explain why they stopped having kids, as cutthroat educational competition explains part, and then once a lot of people aren't having kids, the entire society decides it's OK to forgo doing so since none of their neighbors are doing it.
Cringe of the day: US military spawns yet another UFO investigation workgroup, logo contains a "Latin" motto seemingly made by butchering a stoic motivational poster quote.
I want to put this on the record to have a sign to tap anytime someone brings up "officials at the DoD" as a particularly trustworthy authority on anything. Consider what must have gone wrong for this to pass muster - the individual(s) in charge are so childish to think that slapping on a random Latin motto makes you look legit, they are not skilled or diligent enough to construct a motto that is actually correct, not resourceful enough to hire or ask someone who could do it right, nor capable of sufficient reflection to anticipate that they would fail at it and the result may be embarrassing. (It's not like show-offs like me trying to decipher random Latin is a rare occurrence!) If any other employees looked over the materials at all, either those people also failed the attention or skepticism check, or there is not enough of a culture of criticism that they could report it upwards. What sort of useful contribution can a group of people like that make on the topic of sifting through blurry and contentious footage and deciding if it is evidence of UFOs or some other explanation has been missed? All that is really evidenced is that under the aegis of the US military, there is space for amateurs to do whatever with little oversight.
(Fun thread because there isn't really much that falls along standard CW battle lines here. Happy to move if the implications are too contentious after all.)
Stop worrying about people not having kids! Like, if you're reading this and that is something that you were worried about, I'm begging you, please, it'll be alright. Evolution works! It doesn't need your help! Organisms that are supposed to reproduce, will. Defective organisms that are unable to reproduce will weed themselves out, and rightfully so. It's almost a tautology. Humanity will not go extinct; but if it does, it'll be because it deserved to, and there won't have been anything you could have done as an individual to make a difference either way.
This moral argument here is just-world fallacy. I also doubt that evolution would just trivially solve this issue. In this framework, why would cities and urbanization, which have always decreased fertility quite severely, still be a thing? If evolution could impact human behavior like this, people who refuse to live in cities would presumably gradually rise as a proportion of the population until cities were effectively irrelevant. But instead the opposite has happened.
I highly doubt humans will go extinct due to fertility issues alone, but even a 30% decrease in population could cause a lot of problems. A decrease of 90% (which I personally find unlikely, but is still in the realm of possibility) starts to make industrialized society itself look dicey, which means a huge loss in standards-of-living for humanity.
And to the extent that this "conflict" does have a basis in reality and isn't purely virtual, it's largely a good thing anyway, as its primary effect is to prevent evolutionarily unfit individuals (largely male) from reproducing, while more fecund and vigorous strains are unharmed.
Max Anders the glasses-wearing nerd makes six-figures at his software infrastructure job keeping the city running. But because he has a nerdy and uncharismatic personality and poor facial structure he will never reproduce.
But Slaggern Thundercock has eight children with three different women because he has strong cheekbones and a violent alpha personality? Vigorous by the definition of the 10,000 BC tribal warrior is not really what we need.
Stacy Smartbook is clever and hardworking - she lives alone, her demanding job, lengthy education and high expectations for a partner leave little room or time for a partner or children.
Salmonella Sarvesian is stupid and abusive, raising her brood of children badly. Many will go on to be crooks. She's on welfare and doesn't care, or maybe she works a few hours at a low-income job.
On a global level this is exactly what's happening. The most talented and proficient are not reproducing. We have the statistics on fertility by region, by demographic, by city. We can read a chart. We can see what's happening in front of our eyes. This is a bad thing, at least for those of us who value a high-quality human civilization. In some places it's worse still, the Korean race will vanish from the South if it keeps on this path of TFR going straight down - no genocidal foe is needed.
It is perfectly natural for nations and civilizations to die out. It has happened many times in history. While natural, it is not very pleasant for those who live in a dying nation. We should take steps to avoid this. It is natural for cars driving towards a cliff to sail off, the driver should swerve rather than burn.
Only thing I can say is I've had two real loves in my life, and most of the reason I loved them was because they had qualities and virtues that I was in awe of. And plenty of those qualities were feminine.
And by now I frankly want companionship, validation and physical comfort more than I want to get off. I find myself disappointed that so few people will let me in, or show me anything that's really theirs and not a regurgitated soundbite.
(you'll see this effect in Russia after the war even if they lose; perhaps the best thing for South Korea to do at this point is to invade the North, since they've got a lot of resources they aren't using there).
Given the likely effects of a war on Seoul (half the population is in the Seoul metropolitan area), that will depopulate the country faster than their birthrate will. Maybe the survivors would be willing to breed, I suppose.
South Koreans really aren't very effeminate compared to other East Asians. They all go through military service which seems to change a substantial portion of them physically and mentally, at least IME. The problem (as explained in the linked AAQC) really does seem to be mostly caused by (unrealistically) high female standards.
I am worried about losing the ability to maintain an industrial society.
The problem with highly-automated industrial societies is that you need relatively few people to maintain them. They need to be intelligent, of course- that's why hay gets made about "only the stupid breeding"- but the first indication that there were way too many people for a society to house without serious efforts towards UBI/make-work/bureaucratic expansion came to the US in the 1930s and it's weird nobody seems to realize this.
South Korea has a surplus of people relative to the economic opportunity that can be found there; that's why their education system is a hellscape, that's why women don't feel the need to marry men for resources nor are men in a position to accumulate an attractive surplus (since the average man and average women are roughly equal in industrial and post-industrial productivity, and the men lose some of that through the draft, and the women complain that the post-military men just show up and compete successfully for the same level of jobs).
Their TFR of 0.7, and the fact men can't attract women/women can't be attracted to men in equal conditions like that, is thus natural and probably good for the country long-term, but certainly not beneficial in the short-term (you'll see this effect in Russia after the war even if they lose; perhaps the best thing for South Korea to do at this point is to invade the North, since they've got a lot of resources they aren't using there).
Most people in the first world don't roll infants around in the dirt, certainly. Also, there's something called neonatal tetanus which is probably caused by contamination of the blade used to cut the umbilical cord -- but not only is that something that should be very rare in the first world, the vaccine has to be given to the mother, not the infant.
I think some non-trivial portion of his starting picks won't remain in their positions until the end of his term. I'd say 25%. Either because Trump removes them or they remove themselves.
More options
Context Copy link