Guess I will be talking more about the Tumblr post. Cause I noticed some blog that was linked and actually do want to rant about the politicisation of evo-psych a bit. Also what I said the other day lol:
I can be bothered again.And the sneaky fucker theory really makes no sense for reasons I've gone into too many times already and I cba doing it again now lol. I can be bothered to repeat a lot of stuff clearly lol just not that atm.
Is that a rationalist-adj blog? Or is the title a coincidence?@the-grey-tribe I thought I sensed some deja vu! https://the-grey-tribe.tumblr.com/po...ro-information
The blog's description isn't helping.a primitive culture of savage robots
'Net zero information' I don't know what that means unless it's some kind of play on 'net zero emissions.' Is this one of those times where someone has invented ingroup language for a term that sometimes already had another term? Otherwise I have no idea what that means and google isn't helping.the "women weren't really gathers a lot of the time, they hunted a lot too" findings kind of undermine a lot of evo psych speculation that tries to do misogyny in naturalistic terms. i mean, to no one's great surprise, evo psych turns out to be a lot of making stuff up that feels right and is capable of being phrased in terms of selection pressure without any anthropological supportThe Grey Tribe blog
Apparently the paper is bogus though.
OK let's look at this person's tweet that the third person linked when saying it was bogus. Yeah I recognise this guy below from twitter. He does surveys on related topics (not quoting the whole of the thread though as some is sort of repeating similar points and not really relevant):
That's not what his tweet thread is saying either lol. He's saying people are misusing and misintepreting the paper's findings not that the paper's findings are bogus.This is the kind of paper where people will read the headline and believe it means hunter-gatherers don't have gender roles or a gendered division of labor. However, the paper doesn't claim that or try to demonstrate that. 🧵
[some screenshot of someone on twitter with blue hair saying evolutionary psychology is dying with a screenshot of an article about a paper]
For example, the Hadza are included as a culture where women hunt. However, men hunt most of the time. Almost exclusively.
It's the case in most of the cultures included that is what you will see: men do most of the hunting while a smaller number of women occasionally hunt.
Someone in response to this tweet thread was like 'consider the source' because the person who tweeted that has blue hair but they didn't create the paper they were commenting on the paper. You morons lol.Indeed, no one in anthropology or evolutionary psychology has ever claimed that women literally never hunt.
But saying "women hunt" is kind of like saying "women join the SEALs" for some of these groups.
That being said people absolutely use evo-psych to make similar claims to what he's saying people in these careers don't or more often to push certain cultural norms and agendas. Some of them are evolutionary psychologists themselves like Geoffrey Miller who is also a pronatalist. And some people aren't evolutionary psychogists like Jordan Peterson or Tim fucking Pool - he's not even a psychologist in general lol (he's not even like, why is he even... He reached peak nonsense when he was talking about nuclear weapons anyway lol.) But I believe he's brought up the 'sneaky fucker' thing (while discussing bisexual women lol,) which I'll go into in a bit.
So this often leaves non-conforming people as collateral damage essentially. Because gender roles mean punishing people or commenting/criticising/physically assaulting/sexually harassing and/or assaulting people (because that too is used as a form of gender policing sometimes weirdly in some cultures more than others,) who do not fit gender norms.
They also use evo-psych to make arguments about why women in the modern era should reproduce and should choose family formation over career or any other alternative because it's not either/or (and if you're a real weirdo you might not have a choice lol, but that position is even more controversial and outsider. Let's talk about how people become homeless,) and they argue that women should be housewives etc when they are actually not doing that at an increasing rate and that is conservative's problem because they are worried about the birth rate. Or pronatalists are worried about the birth rate and conservatives jump on that when convinient as an excuse to perpetuate gender norms which they absolutely love doing. It's like their kink literally lol. It's funny because it's true. That's why they argue the positions they do (most of the time anyway.) Because of their reproductive role preferences. And if they're going to use data this way and their own preferences then I can also use this data this way:
Also Aella is hotter than you. Speaking of preferences.
Unless you're a somewhat physically androgynous right wing guy (ex-libeterian most likely, or even ex-liberal,) who conservatives think is a fifth column trying to undermine them and they post about how you sound like a cheerleader etc and how they think you're not that masculine and your bdsm writer progressive fiance is corrupting you. Because I like corruption and androgyny so it almost works if nothing else than for entertainment. But there's never enough evidence. I always have to do most of the work myself - and I can. Because I have a background in fandom but I probably shouldn't have to.
Even then you're all competing with hot androgynous musicians and failing. And that one guy I found on twitter who was off puttingly narcissistic, socially liberal but capitalistic (actually he hated social conservatives and thought he was better than them which was part of the off putting aspect but then simultaneously had some traditional views about gender that he himself didn't fit into so incoherent again basically. Somewhat of a political outlier,) and gave the impression that he was very slowly being taken over by some kind of internal feminine force incorporating classical English and French paintings (among others,) some pre-raphelite paintings - just like Peterson has recently started talking about like a female sex goddess that gets people to do her bidding. That helps a lot thanks Jordan. But again he didn't play into that enough or in quite the right way because he wasn't doing it on purpose/creating a kink website/twitter page. But very close he accidentally touched on something there. So kudos for that.
I mean I'm still going to follow that guy on/off probably because it's like a desert out here - and not the good kind with cacti and aesthetic photography and alien music festivals - the bad kind where creepio went more insane in episode 4:
But yeah.
The pronatalists also end up arguing for restrictive and conservative cultural norms in order to increase the birth rate so they both reach the same point but through different starting points - one group argues in favour of these things due to their reproductive strategy the other because of their fear of a low birth rate nationally when women are allowed choice + being 'overrun by my outgroup.' Sometimes both groups overlap. Consider Simone and Malcolm Collins who are 'pronatalists' and have a video addressing the birth rate with this description that they uploaded in the last day. This description was created by an AI I think? (I think they generate all their video descriptions using AI):
This couple (Simone and Malcolm) are also weird and not exactly conservative since they gave all their female children male or neutral names because they think they'll be taken less seriously unless they do (in what context though if their priority is having tons of children and their children having tons of children?) They also seem to dislike feminine personalities and modern day femininity according to things they've said in videos. Simone doesn't get on with neurotypical or 'hormonally normal' women who she considers more feminine. Other things I won't go into.. They're terrified that they're going to be overun basically eventually by 'economically unproductive, technophobic, xenophobic people' but they also admit that despite everything they can't outbreed that group so I think they're hoping AI will help them or something (I don't know tbh it really hasn't become clear yet.)In this eye-opening episode, Malcolm and Simone dive deep into the startling data behind America's plummeting fertility rates. Analyzing a graph synthesized from multiple studies, they uncover a little-known fact: the lion's share of the fertility decline is occurring among women under the age of 24.
The couple explores the implications of this finding, discussing how the normalization of contraception, declining teen pregnancies, and a lack of understanding about peak fertility windows have contributed to the current crisis. They also touch on the cultural shift towards delayed marriage and childbearing, and how this has led many women to miss their biological window for conception.
This is misleading because as I said just yesterday lol it doesn't apply to people with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation:
(I just found this screenshot and it looks like it's a thread, so maybe they cover this in a later tweet but as it stands that screenshot's misleading.)
And also stop telling guys like Thomas Middleditch that this will happen. He was convinced marriage would 'fix him' and he looked like a nerd (and played one on TV,) so women didn't instinctively avoid him for marriage and look where he ended up.
I do have to hand it to them - it takes a lot to inspire me to defend gymbros. I almost want to congratulate them lol.
I know they're kind of trolls but they seem to be somewhat serious so.
So they get discussions like this in their comments:
The bolded isn't really true because basically everyone continues with education after 16 even though most schools don't have sixth forms, sixth form or equivalent college qualifications goes on till 18 unless this is a recent change (might be, don't pay close attention,) university finishes at 21 (undergraduate degrees are 3 years here not 4 years unless you have a work placement or something as part of the degree.)I've been saying for years that the increased educational requirements of our society are going to cause problems. As people require more education to survive, eventually you get to the point where something's gotta give. Consider a circumstance where everyone needed to be in school until they were 40.It's not even that. It's that women should not be encouraged over men to achieve these things. Men should be given the duty of tackling these tasks, but instead our gynocentric society is pushing women harder and harder, to be men, and taking opportunities away from their would be husbands. Anyone who understands numbers, knows that if you have a quota system for putting women into programs, you're taking spots away from their would be husbands.This instinctively feels true, except a lot of countries/cultures that don't have the same level of credentialism as the US have seen huge drop offs in birth rates.
Even in the UK high school is done at 16 years old and college is done by 19 years old. And their birth rate is 1.5 compared to 1.6 in the United States. African birth rates are half what they were 30 years ago, and they do not have any more credentialism than we do. Latin America, as a whole, has lower birth rates than the United States with far less university degrees granted each year.
I did go to someone's wedding who was a student on my degree course after my second year of uni (I think she was maybe a year older than me so she was probably 21 or so when getting married? I dunno she was born in 1990 I think but I can't remember the months and everything. I feel like I remember her being in the 1989-1990 school year and I was in 1990-1991,) and she had a kid not long after we graduated though she also got held back a year before then so graduated after me but it was within a couple of years or so of when I graduated so I'm sure she was under 25 and her husband was like in the year below us studying the same thing but they met before starting uni and I'm pretty sure he was younger than me. Probably like 18 months to 2 years younger than her (but like I said I forget the ages now,) so this whole story is very atypical probably in the West and I guess by gen z twitter standards she'd probably be considered a pedophile or something because of the age gap.
It's an interesting point over all though.
Also people in the comments who want to destigmatise teen pregnancy and think there should be routes to it being considered either normal or praiseworthy.
They met on reddit. And Malcolm proposed on reddit:
Something about body pillows:We already knew that this couple were terminally online: they first made headlines 10 years ago, when Malcolm proposed to Simone through Reddit "advice animal" memes and DeviantArt commissions.
Did I mention Malcolm is really into anime? Also MLP:Simone made a dakimakura--a style of body pillow usually printed with a sexy anime lady--for Malcolm, with an anime-style version of herself on it.
They have 3 kids but want more and seem really desperate to have at least 8 but started late. They're in their late 30s now. And also Simone had anorexia when younger which I think caused some issues. I can see based on that why they're very pro technology. I'm not convinced that in a conservative culture they would have been reproducing any younger, maybe not at all. Especially Simone actually. She seemed convinced that 'if I was young now I would have been trans' (as in medically transistioned,) in a recent video. Most of the time that's complete nonsense. But I'd assume based on her personality that if she grew up in any previous Western culture or perhaps a future one there's a strong chance she would have become a nun and died without giving birth. Or got burnt as a witch when the other women got annoyed with her not-like-the-other-girls thing. Instead she met some guy on reddit and had 3 kids so not so bad.Notopoulos also pointed out that Malcolm is a brony (a fan of My Little Pony), but he's not just any run of the mill My Little Pony enjoyer--he's specifically into Fallout Equestria, a fanfiction crossover book between the Fallout video game franchise and My Little Pony, and has written about his love of the fic on Medium.
edit: Unlike some of their audience they're not specifically advocating for teen pregnancy (which isn't really surprising as they're 'slow life strategists' and you can only go against your instincts so much):
I don't think she's considering how expensive this technology is... It costs thousands. But if a country was serious about fertility rates they could offer young women the opportunity to do that for free. Or give you a loan like they do with student loans. You only start paying it back if you earn over a certain amount a year so you only pay for your eggs if they work or something. Some companies offer this too but it's obviously better if you're going to do that to do it as young as possible.Really if we were looking at this graph properly and people planned properly we'd see a much bigger spike in the 30 something range of people having kids because they will have frozen eggs, they will have planned adequately and that's what's going on. It feels wrong to encourage really young pregnancy when people just don't feel ready yet but.
Here's what I think is happening here's the gist of what's cuasing fertility collapse from this graph. It's that people are two things one thing is that there's just fewer teen pregnancies. It used to be that some communities were able to motivate high fertility for their population through utilising people with lower amounts of self control. A great example of this is some cultural groups historically were known for their high fertility rate because they banned condoms and they banned abortions, and so when people had sex they had babies and that caused these groups to have higher fertility rates. These are the groups that have their fertility rates collapsing the fastest. In part I think it's because their community is using condoms. I think they're just so normalised now across the world that they are playing a pretty big role here. They tell their kids don't use condoms but their kids are still doing it. I think that the lack of teen sex which has also declined dramatically in the past 10 or so years - people who aren't aware of this it's just dropped like a brick is also leading to this. So the communities that sort of cheese their fertility rates by getting people who did not plan to have kids to have kids this strategy isn't functioning and I was never OK with this stategy to begin with.Women with ADHD do still get pregnant earlier I think. I think related issues run in my family just not really pregnancy related which is a weird and terrible combination probably (from a 'passing your genes on pov' anyway) Like gambling and other addictions sure and some other weird things but nobody really has/had kids young even while marrying young in my parent's case. Well not sure about my grandparents off the top of my head.Right? Seems non consensual. It reminds me of the fertility conference and natalism conference and again at the conservative conference somebody mentioned banning condoms to get fertility rates up and I'm like but we don't want those kids. We don't want kids who are being had accidentally by people who don't want them and don't feel ready to raise them. So what we have to do is up the pressures which appear to be constant throughout this period. These middle aged parents are not falling in terms of their fertility rates right? So the pressure for people who wanted to have kids to have kids seems you know just as big now in the US as it was in the 1990s.
What I suspect is happening overall is people are just pushing back when they plan to have kids. Like women specifically by about 8 years. I think on average they're pushing back when they would have had kids if it was 20 years ago by about 8 years in terms of their planning and a lot of them and this is something we see that I doubt we see historically as much because we keep seeing these among out friend groups a lot of them just then aren't having kids because they hit the end of their biological window.
I'm even more of an outlier though because I never really liked the idea of being pregnant much (or more relevantly - being a bottom in a sexual encounter, so that makes accidental pregnancies pretty hard lol) and would prefer to get someone else pregnant but it's impossible. Or well it's not impossible technically now with surrogacy or if I had a female partner who was OK with carrying my kids but there's a lot of other obstacles in the way anyway - economically, personality/mental health wise, sexuality wise. And most of my crushes are/were on guys although I do sometimes imagine they're sort of women this is part of the 'sexuality wise' I'm kind of the worst of both worlds in so many ways.
Also I don't pay taxes because I don't earn enough to do so in my country lol (gosh I wonder why,) so I think this frees me from my 'reproductive obligations' to pronatalists (Not conservatives or ethnonationalists though because I'm genetically female and white respectively.) This actually makes pronatalists the most irritating group to their outgroup members though because this presumably means they are going to badger and fixate on women who are focussed on their career and highly succesful - a group who are least likely to want kids - to have kids lol.
So (after that insanely long edited in tangent. Actually removed most of it later) these two groups the progressive left and gender conservatives are also just talking past each other essentially here. Because likewise very few people who are 'woke (tm)' would claim that women were mostly involved in hunting. I doubt most people believe that really. Not least because women are and were strongly disincentivised in any culture from taking on masculine roles within cultures - even if they want to - because cultures want to encourage everyone who has a womb to reproduce and to focus on reproduction.The conversation then shifts to the importance of targeting productive, taxpaying individuals in any pronatalist policy. Malcolm and Simone discuss the pitfalls of simply increasing population without considering the economic and social impact of those additional citizens. They also touch on the role of immigration in bolstering a nation's productive workforce.
This is why I agree with Shulamith Firestone in one respect - at least at the point she had this opinion that the creation of artificial wombs is necessary for Humanity to move past this. (Perhaps she changed this opinion later I don't know. I feel like I read someone who is anti-this technology etc suggest she did change her mind or something but I've not read her writing because I don't want to but this point sounds good.) However this group of women who are calling themselves feminists, sometimes 'reactionary feminists' like Louise Perry like Mary Harrington - I think Helen Joyce is another of the type often are actively against research into artificial wombs and surrogacy and this is built into their protest against trans people. Because they are female chauvinists who want to limit the female reproductive role to females and perpetuate this ridiculous war we're in right now between pronatalist and conservative culture on one side and gender progressives on the other and I guess antinatalists technically the antinatalists trascend the core of this debate though imo.
Their motivation(s) are largely unrelated to this debate but I suppose if you wanted to jumble it all together there is a form of antinatalism that is an extreme reaction probably in the opposite side of the gender war. Like 'no women should reproduce because of this gender war' I'm sure someone has that opinion but most antinatalists have a variety of other underlying motivations related to certain philosophical beliefs about suffering etc. Or environmentalism.
The most annoying and frequent thing I've noticed people do with evo-psych is use the 'sneaky fucker' theory to explain certain sexual political things that they assume are happening in the modern day. Which makes very little sense at least how they're using it. Because firstly the general idea is that dominant males drive off other males who have to sneakily copulate without taking into account female choice which I don't think often exists in a lot of other species in the first place. And in a lot of these species (orangutans,) there's only a single dominant male maybe a couple in a group that's clearly not how Humans work. Even 'red pill guys' wouldn't think there's a single guy who gets 100% of the women.
So this is common for harem species I think:A lower-cost alternative mating strategy, useful to bachelors without a harem, is kleptogyny (from Greek klepto- "stealing" and -gyny "female"), popularly known as the "sneaky fucker strategy", where a male sneaks in to mate while the harem owner is distracted: in the case of red deer, when the harem stag is involved in a fight with another older stag.[16][17] The strategy is also recorded in the elephant seal.[18]
A harem is an animal group consisting of one or two males, a number of females, and their offspring. The dominant male drives off other males and maintains the unity of the group. If present, the second male is subservient to the dominant male. As juvenile males grow, they leave the group and roam as solitary individuals or join bachelor herds. Females in the group may be inter-related. The dominant male mates with the females as they become sexually active and drives off competitors, until he is displaced by another male. In some species, incoming males that achieve dominant status may commit infanticide.Humans have harems but most reproduction and socialising isn't really happening in this way. Because female Humans exercise choice. So they can - and usually do - end relationships. This can be violent but usually isn't. Partly because of the state but also because when males behave badly in lawless environments male family members intervene, other friends and relatives, but also women do find ways to get revenge sometimes for very little. I can go into a lot of detail too because special interests with female antisocial behaviour and almost did but I won't lol.Harems can prove energetically costly for both males and females. Males spend substantial amounts of energy engaging in battles to invade a harem, or to keep hold of a harem once dominance has been established.[9] Such energy expenditure can result in reduced reproductive success such as in the case of red deer.[9] This is especially true when there is high turnover rates of dominant males, as frequent intense fighting can result in great expenditure of energy.[9] High turnover rate of dominant males can also be energetically costly for the females as their offspring are frequently killed in harems where infanticide occurs. Harems can also negatively affect females if there is intra-harem competition among females for resources.[15]
The 'bachelor herd' thing is kind of interesting:
If you tried to apply it to Humans you could consider subcultures work kind of similarly? You get low status outgroups that often appeal to neurodivergent people or people who are mentally ill or people who are gender non-conforming, homosexual etc - or otherwise deviating from the norm socially speaking and sometimes these groups are sort of gendered but most of them aren't in an absolute sense and women enter subcultural groups that are stereotypically masculine themselves if they think it's cool or whatever. A lot of music based subcultures haven't had a very clear sex association in the past they might be associated with gender non-conforming people though. Goth is one that started off more neutral and became associated with women more later I think? Because of the aesthetics but there are still male goths. Then consider various nerdy groups that are often made up of mostly men but women will come into these groups if they have related interests etc. I feel like that wouldn't happen in other species really.A bachelor herd is a herd of (usually) juvenile male animals who are still sexually immature or 'harem'-forming animals who have been thrown out of their parent groups but not yet formed a new family group. It may also refer to a group of males who are not currently territorial or mating with females.[1][2]
Examples include seals, dolphins, lions, and many herbivores such as deer, horses, and elephants. Bachelor herds are thought to provide useful protection for social animals against more established herd competition or aggressive, dominant males. Males in bachelor herds are sometimes closely related to each other. Some animals, for example New Zealand fur seals, live in a bachelor herd all year except for the mating season, when there is a substantial increase in aggression and competition.[3]
In many species, males and females move in separate groups, often coming together at mating time, or to fight for territory or mating partners. In many species it is common for males to leave or be driven from the group as they mature, and they may wander as lone animals or form a bachelor group for the time being. This arrangement may be long term and stable, or short term until they find a new group to join.
And in people who discuss this theory there's an attempt to equate this strategy with the one below so I will bring it up too.
And then secondly in some species there are multiple stragies among males where there are territorial males, and one bird species (Ruffs) there are territorial males that make up about 84%, 'satellite males' (16% ) and also 'faeders' who are an androgynous morph who they didn't notice for a long time (make up about 1% ) and imitate females to reproduce and aren't hiding anything and everyone knows they're male and they're also more sexually succesful in that species. There's a high level of polyandry.
They're rare so most females will breed with other males but the females seem to prefer the males who look female and not only that but they're also supposedly drawn in by the homoerotic mating and the males of that species also attempt to copulative with the female mimic birds more often (possibly because they know that,) than with females and sometimes the female mimic birds actually top the other males so they're obviously aware too because the female birds in that species don't top males because they haven't invented strap ons yet no lol:
But maybe though, but probably not lol. Female mice will sometimes display male mounting behaviour even though they don't have strap ons so I think that bird species are 'just like that.' Or maybe it's other physiological stuff I haven't personally watched them have sex so I wouldn't know how they do it lol.This cryptic male, or "faeder" (Old English "father") obtains access to mating territories together with the females, and "steals" matings when the females crouch to solicit copulation.[11] The faeder moults into the prenuptial male plumage with striped feathers, but does not go on to develop the ornamental feathers of the more common males. As described above, this stage is thought to show the original male breeding plumage, before other male types evolved. A faeder can be distinguished in the hand by its wing length, which is intermediate between those of displaying males and females.[39] Despite their feminine appearance, the faeders migrate with the larger lekking males and spend the winter with them.[40] The faeders are sometimes mounted by independent or satellite males, but are as often "on top" in homosexual mountings as the ruffed males, suggesting that their true identity is known by the other males. Females never mount males.[11] Females often seem to prefer mating with faeders to copulation with the more common males, and those males also copulate with faeders (and vice versa) relatively more often than with females. The homosexual copulations may attract females to the lek, like the presence of satellite males.[41]
And of course Humans are a lot more complicated psychologically speaking and have also spread out across the entire planet in different environments (and consider for example the differences between bonobos and chimpanzees who are very genetically similar but were seperated by a river or something like that lol.) So this idea that there are only two reproductive roles for the entire species seems pretty unlikely to me and most people will accept that there are definitely deviations when it comes to sociosexal orientation (preference for casual sex vs commitment,) cause that's very clear but people are less accepting of the idea that there are differences in other gendered behaviour which is odd. Very odd.
I know one Harvard evo-psychologist discussed men's distaste for feminine men potentially coming from men looking for men who would make decent allies during war time starting at early ages which I think is probably one of the reasons why there's conflict about that but there are others. That's one explanatio n for why it's controversial but of course the sociosexual orientation conflict is also huge culturally but people don't deny it exists. That's the thing.
But yeah so the 'sneaky fucker' argument gets brought up so often right now in reference to predatory guys who are pretending to be male feminists (hypothetically this is portrayed as a wide spread problem too.) Often taken even further out of context to be applied to all feminine men in videos/tweets/other online discussions etc. Drives me up the wall. Because that's not even how it works in other species.
I don't think this is a good analogy. I also think it ignores that many people can be predatory to varying degrees in different environments/contexts. Also includes women.
Oh and there's another argument right wing men will bring up which is 'women are sexually bonded to the state.' Or something like that. Which sounds like a harem again. I also take issue with this idea at least if you take it literally this is easy to disprove as most women didn't join 'Trumps harem' just because he won the election. And women don't support the winners of every election. Trump's harem is pretty gay if you will. Did I just find a way to make this gay? Yes it's my gift/curse. And obviously the sex part is spread out more than that because the leader of various states isn't getting sexual access to most women (or men,) lol. There are some who advertise that they would be into that but as a general rule. In fact poltiical leaders are a lot less popular than high status musicians are. Taylor Swift arguably has more influence over American women. But I think right wingers know that and that's why they hate her.
But they also believe that the state in most Western countries doesn't have power there's the 'deep state' or something like that and they have no idea who that is except most have decided they promote wokeness (tm,) or other liberal ideas. Certainly the billionaires are promoting a variety of different and conflicting viewpoints.
I think it's going to be aliens. I'm a big fan of aliens and elves and other fantasy races but I don't really like the power dynamics implied by this because I have to be on top or at least equal. So I'm 50/50 on this conspiracy as a 80/20 sexual switch (maybe. In a fantasy context. Not sure sex is for me irl but also lived as a hermit for long periods and possibly not hot enough to attract ideal partner with long hair also culture is working against me by disuading men from having long hair so I will be forming an extremist group soon like everyone else is. There is one pro-long hair propaganda fact that I always forget how to find but I know I read before lol also some other pro-long hair propaganda facts,) and will get back to this topic later probably. Ideally not. But a some point I'll probably have more thoughts and also feel like contemplating this further.
I guess I'll get back to this topic when they figure out who has all of the control/power.
*dies before that happens*