Random Thought of the Day

[Nyctophilia]

Wonder what's going on here lol:









Some kind of Jungian shadow thing lol?

Someone posted those images in response to something Grimes tweeted.

I think so much of what's been happening over the last decade is simply that the art of diplomacy, oration, and generally competent leadership has been lost.

The purpose of politics is to find solutions when the population can't agree - but both sides have stoked hysteria rather than provide mature competent leadership.

For whatever ways in which one wishes to complain about administrations before this - there was a sense of decorum by both republicans and democrats that - no matter what you think - showed at least the veneer of respect towards the people - that is part of leadership. and that counts for a lot with regards to maintaining stability and yes, mental health

It is very milquetoast liberal vibes tbf.

Also reminded of jreg lol (can't post all the videos there's a whole series):

Yeh so to clarify - a lot of jobs are about to disappear - many of them unpleasant - fine - but with no replacement you've got a lot of unemployed single men - already less educated and less employed than women.

Probably this is just a massive social failure for anyone to take responsibility from a macro pov but also if for some reason u want a civil war or an army this shud work

At what point do we all stop feigning incomplicity ?

AI isn't replacing garbagemen first. that's last. well, plumbers are LAST last.
it's the convenient slacker easy jobs - cubicles with 5 hours of productive work in a 40 hour week, that are going away. (first)

Those boys can barely LARP war when playing CoD so I'm not super worried

I'm really not, either. Men - if permitted- will go do men things.

You're going to meet them at a very strange time in their lives.





It's funny that you don't....

Conscientiousness is one of the five traits of both the Five Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality and is an aspect of what has traditionally been referred to as having character. Conscientious individuals are generally hard-working and reliable. When taken to an extreme, they may also be "workaholics", perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior.[2] People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success, if they also score high on Big Five Agreeableness; otherwise, they are also more likely to engage in anti-social behavior and commit blue-collared crimes and crimes of passion.[3]

Robert Ritter, the head of Nazi Germany's efforts to track the genealogies of the Romani, considered them a "highly inferior Lumpenproletariat" as they were "parasites who lacked ambition and many of them had become habitual criminals."[70] The Romani were seen in post-World War II communist-ruled eastern and central Europe as an example of the lumpenproletariat and were, therefore, subject to an aggressive policy of assimilation.[71]

Ken Gelder noted that in cultural studies, subcultures are "often positioned outside of class, closer in kind to Marx's lumpenproletariat, lacking social consciousness, self-absorbed or self-interested, at a distance from organised or sanctioned forms of labour, and so on."[72]

"social degenerates, isolated from the forces of production and incapable of having a working-class consciousness." Svetlana Stephenson notes that the Soviet state "for all its ideology of assistance, cooperation and social responsibility, was ready to descend on them with all its might."

Due to a desire to keep clean the hands of the larger public, paramilitary groups are often used to commit atrocities and they often recruit mainly among criminals, said to be used to violence and brutality and wanting to enjoy an occasion to loot.[90] The lumpenproletariat has been described as being more likely to adhere to doctrines calling for ethnic cleansing and to organize in militias.[91]

Zheani Sparkes grew up in central Queensland, "super rural?really impoverished, low-socioeconomic," she tells me with grit. "Everyone's on government weekly payments. No one has careers and jobs, parents don't work. I'm going to public school, and all the adults are wrapped up in their own dramas rather than choosing to invest time in creation with their kids."

She likens her "shit hole country school? to a prison, "I'm not an art school kid," she says, "but shout out to kids that get to live that. It sounds like an amazing childhood. I was just another fucking mutt [BEEP] trying to make my way in the world, and getting caught up into a series of absolutey bizarre events."

"In my music, I come across ... like I wanna destroy, but there's the flipside of me [that?s] maternal and wants to protect ... I'm almost proving to the adults in my life that it?s not even fucking hard to take care of people," she says. ?Like, why was it so fucking hard for you to give a stable, nurturing environment where I didn?t have to watch horrible domestic violence ..."

Using music to purge her childhood trauma, Zheani says, "is the most embarrassing thing you could ever imagine." Prior to making music, she'd spent the past 28 years of her life hiding her upbringing. "My parents didn't even fucking work. I can't even say I was working class," she says. "But I was able to overcome that feeling of shame and turn it into pride and empowerment."

Oh well lol.

Cause you think everyone's going to become an artist or something or an 'influencer' I guess (that came up several times in the tweets like that won't be replaced by AI too anyway lol,) and I'm here to tell you they won't.

New music when? New music right now.

Surprise! Pathetic Waste is OUT NOW follow the link to watch the music video! PATHETIC WASTE is an internal monologue, the kind of self deprecating stream that runs through an ADHD mind in the face of failure. This river of vitriol flows for years eroding away at your heart more with each wasted day...

did you miss me? I missed you x

Zheani was featured in a Revolver article titled "SEE ZHEANI FACE DEMONS IN STUNNING VIDEO FOR NEW SONG "PATHETIC WASTE"".[2] The article featured a message from Zheani:

"My music is almost always defiant and affirmational", "Within it, I'm a warrior, a goddess. I am victorious in my art because I so desperately want to be victorious and for my victories to be loved. My fans see me this way, like an avatar, someone powerful and larger than life. But with 'Pathetic Waste,' I try to be more honest about the mundane struggle that my life can often feel like. The pain that my own inadequacy can cause the ones I love. The missed opportunities and squandered relationships. All of this falls in my wake as I drudge forward thinking, 'What if I'm one of the bad people?'"

It's not the best thing ever, but I like this stuff, but there's a lot of rage (it's like we have two emotions 'zombie' and 'rage'):









^ I love this symbolically because it doesn't even finish. It just fades into nothing like he didn't finish it.

Which is part of you know (the internet):



This is the music made by younger millenials and gen z. The stuff by the younger millennials/older gen z is the angriest sounding I think. Like the musicians in their late 20s-mid 30s compared to younger gen z. But not just now it was before as well (like when Halsey was younger):



Probably because:

Popular music is getting sadder and angrier and more fearful, new study finds after examining lyrics last 50 years

Imagine if I could read this BBC article but I can't because someone in the UK pays to not be able to read this (thankfully I don't pay for a TV licence anyway):

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/...er-and-angrier

Is pop music really getting sadder and angrier?

13 May 2019-- Expressions of anger and disgust roughly doubled over those 65 years, for instance, while fear increased by more than 50%.

Page unavailable
We're sorry but this page is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Global News Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC (and just the BBC). The money made from it goes back to help fund the BBC's international journalism.

This is why music is like this lol.

We don't view people who lack ambition well. It's going to drive a lot of people insane - the level of contempt they're going to recieve. Like being plunged into freezing cold water too if they were previously employed and aren't part of the class that are either generationally unemployed (and often zombified though they do obviously have a higher crime rate cause that's often how you get out of the boring dystopia unfortunately,) or the recent generations who have just been gradually dropping out of the work force in early adulthood anyway.

People's entire identity and worth in society is built around their career. Cis men can't even give birth yet so they don't even have that (not really respected except by conservatives,) playing card.

And you haven't solved any of that before doing this.

The AI industry trusts, implicitly, that AI surveillance, AI military tech, and AI corporate defenses will protect them from any social or violent blowback from making hundreds of millions of young men unemployed globally.

They think their Skynet will protect them from the Mob.

If they're right, they're willing for Skynet drones to kill millions to protect AI corporate leaders and employees.

If they're wrong, they get lynched by the Mob.

Either way, a bad outcome.

They really have NOT thought this through.

[Nyctophilia]

Why do men not cry as easily as women do?

Growing up, I rarely saw my father cry, even when emotionally upset. This isn't true of all men though. One ex cried frequently, especially when drunk and discussing his difficult family life. Another ex, despite a far more troubled family history, never cried about it, though he was clearly uncomfortable and sad. Recently, my boyfriend and I had a difficult argument. We were both deeply upset but while I teared up, he didn't cry at all, even though I feel he felt worse than I did. I remember him telling me earlier that it had been years since he last cried. I'm confused about men and crying. I can usually control my emotions, even during arguments with friends, and while women are often perceived as more emotional, I don't typically cry in front of them either. Is there a biological reason some men cry more readily than others, or is this difference true of people of opposite sexes in general?

Does it make you feel weak?

Testosterone affects one's ability to cry. I stopped crying once I turned 13.

Yeah this makes sense. My baby brothers literally cry all the time, so annoying

Guess it does.

I'm not sure it's that simple like why did I cry less about fiction as a kid? I remember I'd see my mum crying while watching some TV show/film and being confused. I specifically remember being confused about that lol. But I tear up sometimes watching stuff now.

I was more physically violent as a kid too when I was angry (I mean pre-puberty late childhood at the latest.) Maybe my testosterone was higher as a child lol.

There are also studies like this one which are funny:

Women who receive a boost of the potent sex hormone act more generously than women on a placebo, a new study finds. But the hormone's reputation seemed to precede itself. Those who suspected they had received bona fide testosterone acted more selfishly than those who believed they got the bogus treatment, no matter what they actually received.

"Almost everybody believes that testosterone has these aggression-enhancing effects," says Ernst Fehr, a neuroeconomist at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, who led the study.

This platitude may be true in some situations, but not all. The hormone's real role is to push men and women to seek higher status, says Fehr. His team tested this hypothesis in women because previous research had established for women how long an external dose of the hormone remains in the body.

They asked 121 women given testosterone or a placebo to play a simple game in which cooperation is paramount. Called the ultimatum game, one participant is given $10 but must offer some of it to another woman. If the second woman rejects the offer, the first loses her money.

Generous women

If testosterone plays a role in status-seeking, participants given the hormone should fear rejection more than others and so should make more generous offers, Fehr says.

That's precisely what the team found - but only after accounting for people's hunches about whether they had received testosterone or a placebo. Women on the placebo tended to offer $3.40, while those given the hormone tendered an average of $3.90.

Those who falsely believed they were on testosterone, however, offered about $1 less than women who believed they had taken the placebo.

When probed on their beliefs about testosterone, participants tended to buy into conventional wisdom, saying, "Oh, testosterone would make me more egotistic, more risk-taking and more aggressive," Fehr says.

I think it's illuminating to see in the comments how trans individuals are reporting that higher testosterone can supress crying. I never would have guessed that.

You can't really trust that because of research like the above.

45M here. Every girlfriend, fiancee, or my wife has left me within 2 weeks of seeing me cry. These days, I nurture my romantic relationship and I cry with my therapist.

You had a wife who left you within two weeks of seeing you cry once? Wtf?

The simple answer is...women are more emotional than men. Men don't experience emotion in the same way.

This is true men experience emotions like this:





I wanted to find a clip of him setting fire to barbie dolls lol but just found this:



"Sure 98% of the internet is just watching porn right now."

Ben, hearing you were "dragged [against your will] by your producers to watch the Barbie movie" was my porn.

The original was better:



And women experience emotions like this:

Same here, I've always thought it was something a bit more than just toxic gender norms.

There's nothing toxic about that, women aren't stupid or irrational, it's a normal thing. I'm still just as emotional as I was before, the same things make me sad, it's just my reaction has changed and that's okay. Don't ever let anyone tell you that you're weaker because you cry

Are they a trans guy? I don't think most people believe this. On a deep personal level I think only (some) trans women do.

There are a lot of trans guys who have some relationship with stereotypical femininity or the defensive thing people do which in women gets called "not like the other girls" and in cis men is called toxic masculinity where it's like "I could only appreciate that after I went on testosterone" or "after I came out as not cis" but cis women mostly don't get to have that experience. (I mean they could go on testosterone and certainly some have lol but that's another story.)

Some kind of weird alchemical androgynous exchange thing.

Trying to find these tweets I read before that seemed relevant...

i think its bc trans lesbians are too 'want to be femme and girly' for the stereotypical cis lesbians... its mostly bi cis women who like trans lesbians

maybe a similar thing happens w trans men who like the idea of manliness more than yr average twink

No but that's tangentially related..

Found it. Everyone involved in this conversation is a trans woman:

the average trans woman is more conservative and reactionary bc of the pressure to perform femininity than a right wing patriarch of the 1960s

if this were true why do cis women under the same pressures break progressive

why are cis women more progressive when they also feel the pressure to perform femininity

cis women are reactionary against the pressure to perform femininity. trans women are reactionary against the pressure to be male. different trajectories.

okay that's a different statement than your OP, and trans women both a pressure to be male and a pressure to perform female stereotypes so that their womanhood is not doubted

its congruent. (many, some, a subset of) trans women are reactionary and pro-feminine gender roles because its a cathartic escape from their existence as males. cis women find catharsis in defying those gender roles.

what do you mean by reactionary in this case.

is uncritical about participating in the reinforcement of gender roles because its the method by which their assimilation/survival in a cishet normative world is mediated

So you're saying it's unwoke for a trans woman to be feminine in a traditional sense, "uncritically". What if that's just what they want to do? What if they want to be feminine and do it because it's their life.

no im just saying i find the subset of trans women that whine about "incel trans women" and chide others for being masculine and socialized male are disgusting reactionaries who barely resemble cis women mentally

the most hyperpatriarchal beliefs congregate in the femme crowd that commonly repeats refrains like "trans women just be normal" or "trans women learn to tuck" or "trans women just have cis female friends" or something like "trans women stop being incels from 4chan"

I don't really think that's the case. Highly gender conforming cis women can police gender roles just as much as harshly, especially in conservative cultures

irrelevant because highly gender conforming cis women arent equivalent to highly gender conforming trans women. like i said they are on different trajectories

That sounds like something a man would say. Fighting for their rights would make you pass better

Social passing doesnt exist, passing is 100% a physical matter only
+ there are mysoginistic c?s women and they get gendered female too

Yeah there are misogynistic cis women who are treated as women, but they pass perfectly as a woman because they are one. A very slightly clocky trans woman who passes 70-80% of the time is probably going to raise more suspicion by being openly sexist

To play Devil's advocate I've seen people call Pearl Jenkins (why did I think that was her name? It's Pearl Davis lol,) a closeted trans man and tell her she should transistion because she hates women.

Well we know she's not gay:



I've also been on websites where misogynistic or otherwise bigoted female posters were assumed to be men. Sometimes even after posting photos of themselves (assumed to be fake.)

Which says a lot about how people view men, I guess.

Asshole = man.

Social passing is very real on the internet though.

[Nyctophilia]

Oh I see this is what all the white nationalists were talking about before on twitter that I mentioned in another post recently.



Why does he keep typing in all caps?

AINT NOBODY RAMPED UP EITHER IM CALM AS ICE.

Perhaps if you turn off caps lock.

Ice has emotion?

Also why [BEEP] Virgil? Someone had to show Dante through hell. Is it because he's a poet?

[BEEP] Virgil? Is Kanye struggling with Devil May Cry 3?

Haha I was going to make that joke but it was too obvious (I knew someone would,) so went for the original.

I don't think he's a nazi at least not on any deep level. I don't think he follows that ideology or that it's something personal for him basically. I just think his behaviour can be explained due a combination of the fact he's mentally ill and will say anything outrageous for attention.

When he does this he can try to piss off white nationalists on twitter (who make up a really large percentage of the userbase now,) and also women. And Jewish people. And black people.

I said my piece on this before though:

Liberal white women are a threat against western civilization!

Are the 92% of black women who voted against Trump also a threat to democracy or only the White women? Are you saying black women are too ineffective to be a threat, or that White women are uniquely more threatening, or something else? Just wondering.

I think the implication is that everyone knows the deal with black women so it doesn't need to be said. At least he added "liberal" to the white women bashing

I think the implication is you're willing to break the sexism taboo but not the racism taboo. Some of your ingroup think you're a bit weak and pathetic for that.

I don't really care as both those things suggest you're unintelligent and uncreative and why would I want that? You're not even nice - because you're posting on twitter so that alone means you're at least somewhat disagreeable and these days usually very disagreeable (and seeing as many intelligent people are assholes - especially online - that's usually some kind of hypothetical plus.)



#himborights

It's never like that on twitter (because they're not himbomaxxing. They're just tweeting about "Kanye humilating his 'Italian wife' (who seems to be Australian)" but I have no context for this story. And how white women deserve bad things or whatever for dating black guys.) Also I just realised Jason is Floridaman:



[...]

They found that low-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were both perceived as liberal and that people have little choice about whether they join, such as blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and gays or lesbians.

Higher-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were perceived as conventional and that people seem to have more choice about joining, such as big businesses, Christianity, the Tea Party, Christian fundamentalists​ and the military​. It was somewhat surprising to see prejudice among liberal-leaning people, Brandt said, as liberals tend to be high in the personality trait of openness to experience.

"Even people who are high on openness to experience, openness to new ideas -- they show this link between perceiving somebody as having different attitudes than them and expressing prejudice," Brandt said. "It's kind of depressingly robust." [How to Talk About Race to Kids: Experts' Advice for Parents]

[...]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6890261/

The total regression model indicated odd beliefs/magical thinking, trait Machiavellianism, and primary psychopathy were significant, positive predictors of belief in conspiracy theories. No other predictors reached significance. Results of the current study highlight individuals who might be more susceptible to believing conspiracy theories. Specifically, these results indicate that the individual more likely to believe in conspiracy theories may have unusual patterns of thinking and cognitions, be strategic and manipulative, and display interpersonal and affective deficits.

Results provided partial support to the prediction that trait psychopathy would predict belief in conspiracy theories. Interestingly, results showed only primary psychopathy was a significant (positive) predictor of belief in conspiracy theories. As discussed in the introduction, primary psychopathy is characterised by traits such as social dominance, self-confidence, selfishness, manipulation of others, and a callous nature [26, 27]. This more composed, confident nature of primary psychopathy contrasts the impulsive, destructive, and volatile nature of secondary psychopathy (Evita March, Jordan Springer, 2019)

As characteristics associated with primary psychopathy such as social dominance, exploitation, and manipulation have all been associated with belief in conspiracy theories [14, 15, 19], it is not surprising that primary psychopathy was a significant positive predictor. The lack of utility of secondary psychopathy to predict belief in conspiracy theories suggests that such beliefs are less associated with impulsivity and emotional reactivity, and may underpin a careful, structured, and detached interpersonal style where relations with others are based on dominance and manipulation. This speculation is supported by the significant role trait Machiavellianism plays in predicting belief in conspiracy theories.

[Nyctophilia]

I've been listening to the @joerogan Experience for over a decade now, and have observed his transformation from militant Atheist to... Well, you'll see.

Here is a detailed history of Rogan's commentary on Christianity, through clips and debates from the podcast👇

Thread 🧵

In this early clip from the Joe Rogan Experience, we hear Rogan railing against Christianity.

He calls Christians dumb and confidently suggests that smart people are predominantly atheists because atheism requires a more sophisticated level of analysis.

This is classic New Atheist rhetoric, where intellect is seen as inherently opposed to faith. But this notion misunderstands what Christianity truly is. Faith in Christ is not anti-intellectual; it engages deeply with questions of morality, purpose, and truth. Christianity has inspired some of the greatest minds in history--from Augustine to Aquinas, from Newton to Pascal to C.S. Lewis and Tolkien.

--------

Here, Rogan shares (with @peterboghossian) his belief that humanity is in an "early stage of enlightenment," where progress will naturally lead to moving further away from God.

He even asserts that the New Testament was "made by Constantine," which is blatantly false.

Rogan's claim reflects a common misunderstanding about progress and religion. The idea that enlightenment means moving away from God ignores how much of Western enlightenment was built on Christian foundations. The scientific revolution, the moral framework of human rights, and even modern education systems owe a debt to Christian thought.

Additionally, the misconception about Constantine is a myth thoroughly debunked by scholars. As he will come to find out.

In this clip, Rogan confidently dismisses the notion that Christianity is evidence-based. He says he'd need to see a study to believe it.

Christianity doesn't rely solely on empirical studies; it's a holistic worldview that integrates historical evidence, philosophical reasoning, and experiential truth.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ, for instance, is supported by historical documentation, eyewitness accounts, and the rapid rise of the early church. Rogan's narrow lens on evidence prevents him from seeing this broader tapestry of proof.

------

Milo Yiannopoulos directly challenges Rogan, calling him out for being "too intelligent" to be so dismissive of religion. Rogan mocks Milo, but Milo doesn't let up.

By refusing to let Rogan off the hook, he forces him to confront his intellectual arrogance. What Milo points out--and what Rogan begins to realize some time after this episode--is that dismissing Christianity without truly understanding it is not intellectual but lazy.

Christianity is not just a set of dogmas; it's a worldview that has shaped civilizations and provides answers to life's deepest questions.

Milo's confrontation might not have changed Rogan's mind immediately, but it planted a seed of doubt in his New Atheist certainties

---

In a discussion with @RichardDawkins, Rogan calls Dawkins' claim that "all religious people are atheists" a "home run."

Hard watch.

This reductionist view conflates disbelief in specific gods with Atheism, missing the unique claims of Christianity. The God of the Bible is not one among many but the source of all being, the moral lawgiver, and the ultimate truth.

Rogan's endorsement of this idea shows how deeply entrenched he was in the New Atheist framework, which prioritizes soundbites over serious engagement with theology.

---

In this clip, Rogan's tone begins to shift. He acknowledges that religion, while human-made, could make the world a better place.

This is a significant moment. Rogan is starting to recognize the moral and social value of faith. Christianity's vision of human dignity, forgiveness, and redemption has profoundly shaped history.

Rogan's admission here suggests he's starting to recognize the moral and social value of faith, even if he hasn't yet embraced its truth claims.

---

In this clip with @RealMattFradd - Jordan Peterson names Rogan amongst recent Christian converts.

If there's anything we know about Dr. Peterson, it's that he chooses his words wisely... does he know something we don't?

Response from a British woman:

I would like to watch these videos as I believe that Christianity has stolen bits from each religion to get the people to accept it all and this is control as they wanted to get people to obey them instead of having their own belief system. This is why I don't accept Christianity

I also saw Rogan interview Mel Gibson and saw his honesty about how he received healing from a guy who used chi gung on him, its channeling energy through the body with Chinese medicine lol. That is also using other forms of their belief systems to justify their beliefs.

There are many forms of energy healing that is based on the same thing, but Christians say its demonic, yet they don't mind going for it themselves and call it something else. This is why I really struggle to get what you actually believe in

You probably shouldn't really trust people with extrinsic religious orientations and no one should trust Milo:

Extrinsic religious orientation is a way of using religion to achieve non-religious goals. People with an extrinsic religious orientation may not be as committed to religious principles, and instead use religion to meet their own needs.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...91886916300678

Highlights. Psychopathy and Machiavellianism negatively correlate with declared religiosity. Empathy mediates the relationship between two dark traits and religiosity. Narcissism positively correlates with extrinsic religious orientation.

Additionally, the results indicated that psychopathy and Machiavellianism were negatively associated with intrinsic orientation, whereas grandiose and vulnerable narcissism were positively associated with extrinsic orientation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/u...ion-gen-z.html

In a First Among Christians, Young Men Are More Religious Than Young Women

Men greeted visitors at the door, manned the information table and handed out bulletins. Four of the five musicians onstage were men. So was the pastor who delivered the sermon and most of the college students packing the first few rows.

"I'm so grateful for this church," Ryan Amodei, 28, told the congregation before a second pastor, Buck Rogers, baptized him in a tank of water in the sanctuary.

Grace Church, a Southern Baptist congregation, has not made a conscious effort to attract young men. It is an unremarkable size, and is in many ways an ordinary evangelical church. Yet its leaders have noticed for several years now that young men outnumber young women in their pews. When the church opened a small outpost in the nearby town of Robinson last year, 12 of the 16 young people regularly attending were men.

"We've been talking about it from the beginning," said Phil Barnes, a pastor at that congregation, Hope Church. "What's the Lord doing? Why is he sending us all of these young men?"

The dynamics at Grace are a dramatic example of an emerging truth: For the first time in modern American history, young men are now more religious than their female peers. They attend services more often and are more likely to identify as religious.

"We've never seen it before," Ryan Burge, an associate professor of political science at Eastern Illinois University, said of the flip.

Among Generation Z Christians, this dynamic is playing out in a stark way: The men are staying in church, while the women are leaving at a remarkable clip.

Church membership has been dropping in the United States for years. But within Gen Z, almost 40 percent of women now describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, compared with 34 percent of men, according to a survey last year of more than 5,000 Americans by the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute.

In every other age group, men were more likely to be unaffiliated. That tracks with research that has shown that women have been consistently more religious than men, a finding so reliable that some scholars have characterized it as something like a universal human truth.

I don't think so really. Women tend to be drawn to the femdom/androgynous dom religions instead lol and don't necessarily label their beliefs or commit too much (lots are into astrology etc too):



Christianity (as with Islam - I'm less familiar with the Jewish religion,) is a religion that emphasises male dominance so obviously will appeal more to men.

The men and women of Gen Z are also on divergent trajectories in almost every facet of their lives, including education, sexuality and spirituality.

Young women are still spiritual and seeking, according to surveys of religious life. But they came of age as the #MeToo movement opened a national conversation about sexual harassment and gender-based abuse, which inspired widespread exposures of abuse in church settings under the hashtag #ChurchToo. And the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 compelled many of them to begin paying closer attention to reproductive rights.

Young men have different concerns. They are less educated than their female peers. In major cities, including New York and Washington, they earn less.

At the same time, they place a higher value on traditional family life. Childless young men are likelier than childless young women to say they want to become parents someday, by a margin of 12 percentage points, according to a survey last year by Pew. The young men at Grace and Hope churches "are looking for leadership, they?re looking for clarity, they?re looking for meaning," said Bracken Arnhart, a Hope Church pastor.

"I'm not sure what church life looks like with a decreasing presence of women," he said, pointing out that they historically have been crucial forces in missionary work and volunteering. "We need both spiritual mothers and spiritual fathers."

I assume gen z men have converted to Christianity either because they want to control women or because they are very lonely because of the guys who want to control women and a significant percentage of gen z women not trusting any men now. Hopefully they will find some friends and something besides women to focus on as with lesbian nuns etc in the past.

That's the best you can hope for now.

Done With Debating

The Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest Protestant denomination to which Grace Church belongs, continues to fiercely debate the place of women in leadership and family life. The denomination's statement of faith says that only men may serve as pastors, and that a wife is to "submit herself graciously" to her husband. At its annual meeting this summer, delegates voted to condemn the use of in vitro fertilization.

Young women, it seems, are moving past the debates -- and out the church doors.

About two-thirds of women ages 18 to 29 say that "most churches and religious congregations" do not treat men and women equally, the Survey Center on American Life found.

I'm in a really pissed off mood today for hormonal reasons and I'm trying really hard right now.

I'm trying really fucking hard right now lol. (And not in my previous two posts at all - actually they could have been even worse. I've removed on now anyway.)

Like I said I hope they meet some male friends.

"Hagrid you're pushing me over the fucking line."

Edit: I'm reading the comments on the article and the opinions are all the kinds of things you hear over and over:

Hmm? Instead of the headline reading that young men are more religious than young women, why doesn't it say that evangelical churches are losing young women at a higher rate than young men? If it said that it wouldn't really be a 'surprising' first but a predictable consequence of the patriarchy embedded in most evangelical churches.

Yeah lol...

Hmmm, a religion that pours resources into fighting to keep women's bodies a public commodity is losing respect from women.

What a shocker.

If Christianity keeps morally devolving, the trend will continue until there are no women left to oppress.

This world is facing a shift away from patriarchy, and is morally righteous in doing so. It's up to religious leaders to help their flocks adapt, or dig in their heels and let nature do for them what they can't even do for Jesus.

Women aren't less religious. They just have a new secular one that better caters to them. "Wokeness" or whatever it is called lately is an evolving ideology that provides many of the structures and comforts of religion. However, it only provides grace based on your ancestors' level of oppression without hope of forgiveness for the oppressor.

As hopeless woke oppressors, it makes sense that men would need to look elsewhere for salvation perhaps an old church that promises that love is unconditional and that all may hope to be forgiven for their sins.

You can't just call every ideology a religion though. It has to have a spiritual component to it. There are features beyond just an 'ideology' otherwise fascism is a religion, and communism, and anarchism etc. Hell you could probably argue being a goth is a religion using this logic. I could see the people who insist on this trying to argue that as it helps with attracting converts to Christianity, but it makes no sense.

And Christianity definitely doesn't promise unconditional love.

Men, mostly unemployed and/or poorly educated (degrees don't matter), are becoming more religious than women in most democracies. Traditionally, women are always more religious in every country and every society. Now women, at least in some countries, are waking up to the reality of their exploitation by every religion where men enjoy an undue privilege. Abortion controversy, started by the Trump party with the active help from Christian fundamentalists support base of the party, helping this reverse trend among sensible women. That section of religious political support, not just in America but in most countries, are also more racist and divisive. Right wing Political parties led by incompetent politicians like Trump, Erdogan, Modi etc, are exploiting those people to the fullest.

I am saddened by many of the comments I read here. I am the mother of three twenty-something sons. I didn't have daughters. It wasn't a choice we made, but I was and still am thrilled to have been blessed with three healthy children.

Unfortunately, most readers seem to assume they must be selfish people who merely want to subjugate others. They aren't. They aren't perfect, but they all had jobs and worked hard in high school, and the older two have full-time jobs. They treat their girlfriends with respect and celebrate their accomplishments. The message they are getting from this readership is that they are worthless.

It's unsurprising that women are moving away from misogynistic institutions that marginalize, objectify, and infantilize them. I'm glad to see women gaining greater autonomy and guiding their own lives. Understand that this is one of the main reasons why the Republican party, with their Project 2025, is working so hard to eliminate women's rights and narrow and obstruct their opportunities. Republicans and conservatives really don't like the fact of women having freedom and independence. All of us should remember that when we vote in November.

As far as the number of men gravitating toward this church, I noticed an undercurrent of entitlement toward relationships with women, especially with the repellant subservient role of women as crafted in religious structure. Do these young men see women as equals to build partnerships with, or do they see them as a type of possession to achieve as a check-off on a list of social requirements? I don't assume to know, because each person is different. I will say, it's worrying how conservative religion is pulling in numbers of highly impressionable young men, and most especially radically extremist conservativism on the internet and social media, which makes flagrant and horrific misogyny one of its prime tenets. This disconnect creates potential for dangerous radicalization.

It's crucial that we vote in November for Harris and Democratic candidates to strengthen and restore what's been taken from women.

The traditional church tells young men who are wiithout much direction in their lives and who are feeling challenged by women's new found focus and drive, that they are meant to be in charge and women following quietly behind them. So of course this is appealing. You don't have to do anything to earn this status, just be born male. The male bonding that takes place around the subjugation of women is justified in the name of religion and gives a respectable cover.So why wouldn't women flee from this arrangement, now that they have learned it is not just the way things are?

I was waiting. Waiting for this take:

This is interesting. I recall hearing someone (Southern, for sure) say that "Church is where God and women come together to do something about the men of this world". Maybe the evolving gender bias in church is a symptom of creeping feminization of American men?

I knew it would be there somewhere lmfao.

God we've all become so incredibly predictable.

And well it depends on the guy really and their motivation for doing that. The ones who actually want to have a bunch of kids (for non narcissistic/status based reasons,) are maybe more 'feminine' technically. But I think they are still more masculine than feminine identity wise.

Otherwise they'd be into role reversal (the subreddit,) or something like that. Which makes more sense as a relationship dynamic than the one in the Bible if you're a feminine guy. Or just femme4femme type stuff but either way I think the Christian religion is very against non-conformity in roles and aesthetics and so on.

Probably the biggest reason I think is just loneliness and lacking any goal/direction in life.

[Nyctophilia]

The younger generation has powered through a lot of upheaval in their short lives but it's taken a toll on their mental health. A new survey finds that an astounding 42 percent of those born between 1990 and 2010 - Gen Z - have been diagnosed with a mental health condition.

In fact the majority - 85 percent - of the respondents say they are worried about the future. Their top concerns unsurprisingly center around finances and the economy. But they're also stressed out about things like politics, the environment, violence and work issues. Nearly 90 percent of Z's say they don't feel set up for success and 75 percent of them believe they are at a disadvantage compared to the older generations.

Lol I'm now young/gen z again (born in 1991.)

Well I am mentally ill and I think for that kind of 'cultural shift' it probably makes sense to include people born then as early examples. I feel like I noticed two different cultural attitudes though like even though I had lifelong anxiety when I was 14~ people were a bit more optimistic in some way (including myslf,) relatively speaking but by the time I hit my late teens/early 20s it had shifted. Firstly with the recession and the kind of things teachers would say about that.

Now I'm back to being a millenial haha (this website is from 2022 btw):

Despite so many wrestling with psychological challenges, 79 percent of Gen Z believe their age group is best at addressing mental health; 82% of Gen Z feel Baby Boomers (aged 55-64) are the worst at talking about mental health but took a more positive view of Millennials (Ages 26-41) and their approach to discussing mental health.

Of the survey respondents, 47 percent were men, 45 percent women, 6 percent nonbinary, and 2 percent transgender. They ranged in age from 18 to 24 with an average age of 22. Gen Z is the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in U.S. history, according to Pew Research Center.

My dad who is a boomer's take is that everyone is just 'exaggertaing things these days' he knows I'm messed up though from being around me and is empathetic (to a point,) but he's biased against people who aren't related to him. Classic low trust culture disagreeable kind of guy in that sense.

Also I'll tell you right now that that survey is not representative because in the census data for the UK which was filled in by people aged 16+ only 30,000 people were non-binary (and then another 18,000 just didn't enter anything - many of those would be gender critical people who disagreed with the question politically because I saw some discussing it online. There were also a number of trans women and trans men - 48,000 each. They even think due to the geographical distribution of respondants and their religious background that the UK results were lower than that and some people just couldn't understand the question due to poor English etc.) But yeah 6% is really high it's 0.06% in the UK lol but tbf our country is really transphobic.

Also unrelated stuff:

I was reading the plot section of the parent trap wikipedia page (I have watched it before as a kid but not since then,) and you know the beginning is kind of dumb. Like how do they not realise immediately that they're twins? They're identical lol.


Also I watched the film Where the Crawdad's Sing and was reading the wikipedia page for that:

Aspects of Kya's life and the novel's narrative choices, including its attitude towards its black characters, are said to be reminiscent of Owens's time in Zambia, where she, her then husband, and his son are still wanted for questioning in the killing of an alleged poacher captured on film in a 1996 report by ABC News. Owens is not a suspect, but is considered a possible witness, co-conspirator or accessory.[7] The Los Angeles Times comments that the novel "seems to draw from [Owens'] own involvement in the 1995 murder", describing the story of her time in Zambia as a "tumultuous history".[8]

Damn lol.

I don't know what to make of that film honestly. I agree the cinematography was good and I liked the concept a lot but the execution not so much. I feel like it could have been amazing but was just OK instead because of various choices made and the writing/acting/casting etc. The end was kind of good as there were a few different directions I had seen it going in that it didn't end up going in.

For me there were many things that just didn't make sense like why did her entire family abandon her? And how did she manage to escape the state for so long? Very unrealistic. Felt like something I would do in the Sims (lots of people do,) which is why I kind of enjoyed it but like very unrealistic. Requires too much suspension of disbelief really even for the time period I think...

Also cause I re-watched the pilot of Brooklyn 99:

Season One

In the Pilot, Daniels is described by Terry as someone who is better at desk work and making coffee than her actual job. She is friends with Norm Scully and Michael Hitchcock.

She is presented as an important character, though she only appears in the Pilot episode.

Dan Goor, Brooklyn Nine-Nine co-creator, claimed that she was set to return in Season Six, but was not seen in any of its eighteen episodes.

Mysterious. I've re-watched Brooklyn 99 a few times but for some reason this is the first time I've ever noticed this character or it occured to me that this character never pops up again lol. I think they should make a spin off. I don't think it would work she didn't have much screen presence/identifiable interesting aspects to her in the moments she was there but would be cool if I was wrong.

[Nyctophilia]

"I suspect the economy is already a form of alien intelligence that serves itself as a primary goal & survival of humans is secondary at best."

Isn't this just common sense? What am I missing here? How is this new thinking? (Seems implied.)

I feel like there has to be something.

Grimes if you actually knew how to read the Manifesto instead of just taking a photoshoot with it you'd realize many people have been saying this for a very long time.

I've not read it myself - this is not an idea that's hard to imagine though lol?

Isn't it just kind of obvious that it's being prioritised over Human life? An end to itself? Even the quality of many things appears sacrificed. Especially creatively.

Maybe you have to be unemployed and mentally ill (not thriving,) for some time to notice...? I know it can't be that come on guys.

nick land is wrong, technocapital serves man

doesn't seem to be, human mental health is doing pretty terribly, and trending worse.

This take is clearly influenced by the gradual disempowerment essay. Why not reference it?

Never heard of it

My bad! Others have pointed out that this was likely the case. In case you're interested https://gradual-disempowerment.ai :)

Sweet thanks will check it out. If this idea is coming up in multiple places it (sadly) speaks for it being true, or at least plausible

???

This idea neither originates with Nick Land nor whatever that recent thing is. It's not specific to AI either.

The surrealness has returned once again (it never really leaves.)



I am skimming parts of the website mentioned:

Past technological shifts like the industrial revolution or the development of electronic communication have substantially changed the world of work, but crucially they have always done so either by making humans more efficient, or by automating away specific narrow tasks like weaving, washing clothes, or performing arithmetic. Unlike previous technological transitions, AI may fundamentally alter this pattern of labor adaptation. As [4] argue, while past technologies mainly automated specific narrow tasks, leaving humans to move into more complex roles, AI has the potential to compete with or outperform humans across nearly all cognitive domains. For instance, while the calculator automated arithmetic but still required human understanding to apply it meaningfully, AI systems can increasingly handle both calculation and the higher-level reasoning about when and how to apply mathematical concepts.

Yeah. I mean that's an obvious risk. It could increasingly replace everything and even before that the assumption that people will be intelligent enough to move into incraesingly more advanced and complicated roles is incorrect.

I recently discussed in another post that it requies a lot of motivation/drive alongside luck to suceed creatively surrounded by demotivated people (generations of unemployed people,) and then try to become a famous artist or something (proposed future job,) too (the anecdote of Zheani,) many also turn to crime to get out of that. And once again this is being automated early on so. A lot of people argue that creativity is one of the more rewarding Human things and yet.

Most 'influencers' (new media entertainment figures,) are also mentally ill now or have ADHD etc. I don't think that's mostly because of their job (in fact it would be impossible for you to 'develop ADHD' in theory. That's not how that disorder works.) I think people who are mentally ill or have ADHD etc find that kind of work works better for the way their mind works or otherwise drift towards it (I have a YouTube channel with neurodivergent symptoms/motivation issues and anxiety etc, my brother had one years ago and he has lots of ADHD symptoms and diagnosed dyslexia,) and a tiny minority get lucky. It's very high risk/reward imo.

Actually I'm not sure it works better. I think it's just preferable to working under a boss and dealing with other's disapointment/criticism for a lot of people.

Every day on that website there's some video like this (I know this is 9 months ago but I only saw it today):



And it's not great to say this but it's like 'water is wet.' I think it's like every popular goth YouTuber I can think of now too lol. One is also autistic. Well maybe not everyone but like 50+% easily. Those are just the ones who have been diagnosed as well.

AI risk scenarios usually portray a relatively sudden loss of human control to AIs, outmaneuvering individual humans and human institutions, due to a sudden increase in AI capabilities, or a coordinated betrayal. However, we argue that even an incremental increase in AI capabilities, without any coordinated power-seeking, poses a substantial risk of eventual human disempowerment. This loss of human influence will be centrally driven by having more competitive machine alternatives to humans in almost all societal functions, such as economic labor, decision making, artistic creation, and even companionship.

A gradual loss of control of our own civilization might sound implausible. Hasn't technological disruption usually improved aggregate human welfare? We argue that the alignment of societal systems with human interests has been stable only because of the necessity of human participation for thriving economies, states, and cultures. Once this human participation gets displaced by more competitive machine alternatives, our institutions' incentives for growth will be untethered from a need to ensure human flourishing. Decision-makers at all levels will soon face pressures to reduce human involvement across labor markets, governance structures, cultural production, and even social interactions. Those who resist these pressures will eventually be displaced by those who do not.

Still, wouldn't humans notice what's happening and coordinate to stop it? Not necessarily. What makes this transition particularly hard to resist is that pressures on each societal system bleed into the others. For example, we might attempt to use state power and cultural attitudes to preserve human economic power. However, the economic incentives for companies to replace humans with AI will also push them to influence states and culture to support this change, using their growing economic power to shape both policy and public opinion, which will in turn allow those companies to accrue even greater economic power.

Once AI has begun to displace humans, existing feedback mechanisms that encourage human influence and flourishing will begin to break down. For example, states funded mainly by taxes on AI profits instead of their citizens' labor will have little incentive to ensure citizens' representation. This could occur at the same time as AI provides states with unprecedented influence over human culture and behavior, which might make coordination amongst humans more difficult, thereby further reducing humans' ability to resist such pressures. We describe these and other mechanisms and feedback loops in more detail in this work.

Though we provide some proposals for slowing or averting this process, and survey related discussions, we emphasize that no one has a concrete plausible plan for stopping gradual human disempowerment and methods of aligning individual AI systems with their designers' intentions are not sufficient. Because this disempowerment would be global and permanent, and because human flourishing requires substantial resources in global terms, it could plausibly lead to human extinction or similar outcomes.

Perhaps people will be OK inside their own perfectly created personalised virtual realities where everything can be simulated seamlessly and with hyper realism. Someone on another forum I was on once seemed to be OK with that. Fiction like The Matrix portrays simulation world in a dystopian way but that might just be because it was never that well developed anyway - people noticed something was wrong and they felt like Edward Norton's character in Fight Club.

It's hard to say. If people can't thrive in this world, maybe there's another world they could thrive in. That's the promise of virtual reality for those at the bottom of the hierarchy. But the inbetween period is not working so far for increasing numbers of people as mentioned.

Edit: Also it's not like people necessarily want to give you a choice about virtual reality. More on that later.

On a tangential note (about people's 'worth' I guess. I wrote most of this before the above. I've edited this a few times now though):

Thinking about this again cause I stumbled on a quote a few weeks ago:

Intelligence is associated with the "effortful control" that permits you to force yourself to believe something; in other words, you are better able to come up with ways to convince yourself of the veracity of it.85 The women who are likely to reject feminism are those who are, for genetic reasons, highly religious and patriarchal, precisely the kind of females who predominated under conditions of harsh Darwinian selection. They are more inclined to breed, and, indeed, they do. And, as discussed, traditional religiosity is associated with genetic health. Thus, "feminism," for females, is a new crucible of evolution. It recreates Darwinian pressures and removes genetically unhealthy females. In a quite ironic way, it is a return to nature.

Feminism is a crucible of evolution for males, too. It creates an intense evolutionary mismatch. From a young age, men are told that masculinity is evil; they are encouraged to be female-like (and thus unattractive to females); they are forced to live in a society increasingly dominated by women and feminine interests, such as "empathy" and "equality." Monogamy is undermined. An evolutionary mismatch creates stress, and it has been found that stress, particularly about low status and losing--with males being constantly told that masculinity is bad-- reduces testosterone levels, making more males behave in a more feminine way, reducing their drive.86 To make matters worse, a society that focuses on "equality" plays down, among males, the need to win in competitions and feel dominant over other people, from a very young age. It is, however, the knowledge that you have won, and the feeling of dominance, that boosts testosterone.87

This results in more and more males not being able to obtain females, with the collapse of restrictions on female sexuality also meaning that these females either have fleeting relationships with promiscuous higher status males or turn to lesbianism in their absence, so strong is their revulsion for lower-status men. Males are, anyway, preoccupied, if not overwhelmed, by highly realistic porn. The kind of males that will get through this abusive environment will be those that are highly resistant to absorbing left-wing ideas about feminism, because they are genetically highly traditionally religious. They will also be those who are not prone to mental illness and the resultant dysphoria, and those who have a genetic strong desire to have children. In other words, only males who are strongly adaptive, for genetic reasons, and thus cannot be pushed awry in this manufactured hellscape, will end up passing on their genes.

In this narrow sense, feminism is effectively eugenic, though its overall effect is massively dysgenic, due to it persuading intelligent women to heavily limit their fertility. Regardless, feminism, and all that goes with it, will have dramatic demographic consequences in the West. Future polities will have a dramatically different character than the ones in which feminism flourished.

I'm sorry how is this anything to do with feminism realistically? It's really more technological and the sexual revolution wasn't predominantly a feminist movement imo it was just young people in general rebelling - if anything I assume mostly men were involved as they tend to be most effected by restrictive culture and have a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation (like casual sex more so it actually suits them better,) they also statistically have more fetishes on average (though female fetishes are massively downplayed and not discussed so the gap there isn't as big as most people think.) A lot of feminism is actually quite sex negative which is part of my issue with it. Hilarious that right wing writers have to blame everything on 'feminism' and women though lol.

Also I think most people do this at some point or another but the absolute hubris to sort of sit here like 'I'm God and this is dysgenic' when you think about it. Look what you did to Snowball (Humans that is):



Well I thought the religious women who are reproducing are 'genetically healthy' so who cares then lol?

But Western males are not only discouraged to compete in these ways, but society tells them that they have "lost"-- something hammered home with every commercial where a White female has a non-White husband or every time they see a foreign male or woman in a position of power, something which the media heavily exaggerates. With female dominance of the workplace, work becomes a less competitive space, at least in the overt male sense, creating an extreme mismatch and reducing male testosterone. To make matters worse still, females in the workplace interfere with sexual selection because they cause so many females to be themselves of higher status than so many males, when females sexually select for status.

Mysteriously it's just white men vs everyone else everytime. Not just white men either I guess. Heterosexual, cisgender white men (can probably throw in a bunch of other modifiers there until you get like only 30% of the population or something) and then everyone else.

The population is increasingly in an "evolutionary mismatch." We are evolved to be with genetically normal humans, who are mentally healthy, and shun those who are not. We are evolved to a situation of hierarchy, often with hereditary and religiously sanctioned leadership. We are evolved to live in a religious society, as well as a patriarchal society, with clear sex roles. We are evolved to live in a homogenous society. This is our "evolutionarily familiar" environment, and animals tend to become unhappy and stressed if placed outside familiar structures, leading to depression and anxiety, which leads to infertility--a sense that nothing is worth it.37 People do not enjoy living in an "evolutionary mismatch," no matter what they might feel they should say in public.

Shunning 42%+ of the population might be difficult but people are certainly doing their best by increasingly not having friends lol.

And I'm skeptical as you burnt a lot of people who disagreed with you before. Centuries ago. He has an entire book about that too as you can imagine.

Speaking as an infrequent visitor, one can't read more than a post or two before the oddly insistent refrain starts that women's rights will (sadly) have to be curtailed to ensure survival of our own particular misogynistic culture.

Which could soon be overtaken by other more virulently misogynistic cultures. So we'd better hop to and ban women from college.

Users like me, who point out that if humans cannot figure out a better system than one where 50% of the group abuses and oppresses the other half in order to get them to breed, it's probably best if that species goes extinct with all the rest.

I completly agree.

But then that's what (some people,) are worried about.

Got distracted by other points while finding the other quotes:

Once they've got this far, what is the next step? With the breakdown of traditional religiosity, the society is already strongly sociosexual. So, perhaps the next "oppressive structure" they should question is the adaptive distinction between "adult" and "child." They can use the same tactics that you might with "race." What do we mean by "child"? Is there a clear border between "adult" and "child"? Do not different societies have different conceptions of what constitutes a "child"? Is not "child" a very "Western" concept? Children are oppressed, shouldn't we liberate them from this oppression? Didn't you know that there is evidence that even very young children have sexuality? Shouldn't expression of sexuality be a "human right"?

We've now reached a point where even age gap relationships between adults are seen as abusive and some people want to push the age of legal adulthood to 25+, so I doubt we're heading in that direction anytime soon honestly.

Whenever I discuss civilizational collapse, I often encounter rejection, denial, and magical thinking. In the face of evidence, many people adamantly declare that it simply "can't happen here." Their arguments take a number of forms. One of note evinces a certain "Gnostic" mentality, which relates to QAnon and the conspiracy theories of the American Right.

In effect: The world is run by highly intelligent, evil people. They are going to institute eugenics for themselves and create a super-race. World government is real; elite tyranny is imminent, and the rest of us might end up enslaved or exterminated.18 Or something to that effect.

I don't think it's that dramatic - I think we're just going to have to increasingly fend for ourselves as everything is increasingly automated and people who consider themselves part of the elite will (are really,) attempt(ing) to build disconnected city states with the eventual plan to use machines to protect them. (Elon being the richest decided taking over the US instead would do.)

I also know that people in positions of power and influence are split on this like Grimes and Geoffrey Miller:

Yeh so to clarify - a lot of jobs are about to disappear - many of them unpleasant - fine - but with no replacement you've got a lot of unemployed single men - already less educated and less employed than women.

Probably this is just a massive social failure for anyone to take responsibility from a macro pov but also if for some reason u want a civil war or an army this shud work

At what point do we all stop feigning incomplicity ?

The AI industry trusts, implicitly, that AI surveillance, AI military tech, and AI corporate defenses will protect them from any social or violent blowback from making hundreds of millions of young men unemployed globally.

They think their Skynet will protect them from the Mob.

If they're right, they're willing for Skynet drones to kill millions to protect AI corporate leaders and employees.

If they're wrong, they get lynched by the Mob.

Either way, a bad outcome.

They really have NOT thought this through.

It's kind of a testament to the fact most people aren't on social media sites and/or discord reading and listening to what people in these circles are saying that civilisation has not already collapsed.

Tbf though there's nothing most people can do about anything so....

How can one respond to this? First, there is no evidence whatsoever that "the elite" is doing this, so it is just religiously motivated speculation. Secondly, what evidence would falsify this hypothesis? If it cannot theoretically be falsified--which it seems it cannot be--it is not scientific and should be dismissed as speculation at best.

Mm OK. I am notoriously lazy but... It's not really farfetched or reaching too much except I don't think anyone would ever be so brazen to just say 'intelligence' is what they're selecting for:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ania-candidate

The couple, who have four children, were approached last year by an individual posing as a wealthy donor willing to finance their work. In response to his request, they created a 15-page slide deck entitled The Next Empire: Leveraging a Changing World to Save Civilization. It contained ideas that seem plucked out of a dystopian science fiction movie. According to their presentation, the city-state they envisaged would become a magnet for "no-holds-barred" medical research, which in turn would open the door to the"mass production of genetically selected humans".

The voting rights of citizens of the city-state would be linked to their value to society, according to the Collinses' presentation. The proposed city-state government would have "incentive systems that grant more voting power to creators of economically productive agents" and would be run by a single "executor" - which the proposal also called a "dictator" - with full control of the government's laws and operational structure. The executor would be replaced every four years by three "wards", according to the slide deck. Wards would be elected by previous executors.

^ It appears to loosely be inspired by Curtis Yarvin's writing about patchwork:

The basic idea of Patchwork is that, as the crappy governments we inherited from history are smashed, they should be replaced by a global spiderweb of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of sovereign and independent mini-countries, each governed by its own joint-stock corporation without regard to the residents' opinions. If residents don't like their government, they can and should move. The design is all "exit," no "voice."

(I'm not aware of any specific writer that has proposed exactly this, but it is certainly not an original or interesting idea in and of itself. I?ve certainly read about six zillion science-fiction books in which this is the general state of the future. The devil, however, is in the details. We will go into the details.)

This paradox is just one more stimulus for a complete replacement of the State. We have had enough. We are done with the present system of government. We want a reboot. And, anarchy being both impossible and un-reactionary, we can?t even talk about a reboot until we?ve specified what operating system to boot next.

So we can think of Patchwork as a new operating system for the world. Of course, it does not have to be installed across the entire world, although it is certainly designed to scale. But, it is easier and much more prudent to start small. Innovations in sovereignty are dangerous.

He's a programmer btw.

But how should realms be administered? The answer is simple: a realm is a corporation. A sovereign corporation, granted, but a corporation nonetheless. In the 21st century, the art of corporate design is not a mystery. The corporation is owned and controlled by its anonymous shareholders (if you've ever wondered what the letters SA stand for in the name of a French or Spanish company, they mean "anonymous society"),1 whose interests in maximizing corporate performance are perfectly aligned. The shareholders select a chief executive, to whom all employees report, and whose decisions are final. In no cases do they make management decisions directly.

It is at least probable that this joint-stock design maximizes corporate efficiency. If there existed a more effective structure--if firms were more productive when managed not by a committee but by an executive, or by the collective decisions of their customers or employees, by separate legislative and judiciary branches, etc., etc.--we would know. Someone would have found a way to construct a firm on this design, and it would have outcompeted the rest of the stodgy old world. (In fact, I think one of the most plausible explanations of why the Industrial Revolution happened in England, not in Sung China or the Roman Empire, was that the latter two never evolved anything quite like the joint-stock company.)

Here we face a slight predicament. There are quite a few people presently in San Francisco who do not meet the second constraint, are pretty iffy on the first as well, and have no labor skills to speak of. What do we do with them? Sell their slums out from under them, obviously; demo everything, spray for roaches, rodents and pit bulls, smooth the rubble out with a bulldozer or two, and possibly a little aerial bombing; erect new residential districts suitable for Russian oligarchs. Next question?

But where do they go? Since their customer-service contract gives them the right of exit, these people--call them bezonians--can of course emigrate to any other realm in the Patchwork. This presumes, however, that said realm is willing to accept them. And why would it be? If our design does not provide for the existence of a large number of human beings whose existence anywhere is not only unprofitable, but in fact a straight-up loss, to that realm, it is simply inconsistent with reality.

Strong identification and tracking of residents also mitigates one of the most obvious problems with the Patchwork approach, the inconvenience of constantly crossing borders in a world of small sovereignties. What does a resident do if she lives in San Francisco and wants to drive to Berkeley, which is a different country? Is there a checkpoint on the Bay Bridge?

Not at all. She just drives to Berkeley. Her car knows who is in it, and the authorities of both SF and Berkeley know where it is. If she is for some reason not authorized to enter Berkeley, all sorts of alarms will flash. If she persists, she will be of course detained. Having a scalpel, Patchwork feels no need to whack anyone with a club.

There is one problem, though, which is the problem I mentioned in Chapter 1: the problem of adults who are not productive members of society. In our little Newspeak we call them wards of the realm. A ward is any resident who is not capable of earning a living, is not accepted as a dependent by any guardian, and is not wanted by any other patch.

The initial conversion of our present, democratic, and of course completely dysfunctional San Francisco into the realm of Friscorp will produce quite a few wards. At least relative to the number we would expect to emerge in a healthy society. But there will always be black sheep, and there will always be wards.

As Delegate of San Francisco, what should you do with these people? I think the answer is clear: alternative energy. Since wards are liabilities, there is no business case for retaining them in their present, ambulatory form. Therefore, the most profitable disposition for this dubious form of capital is to convert them into biodiesel, which can help power the Muni buses.

Okay, just kidding. This is the sort of naive Randian thinking which appeals instantly to a geek like me, but of course has nothing to do with real life. The trouble with the biodiesel solution is that no one would want to live in a city whose public transportation was fueled, even just partly, by the distilled remains of its late underclass.

You know like how people argue a right wing libertarian is incoherent because they worship capitalism like a state? And Mussolini famously said this: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Well he was kind of like "oh yeah true, it is incoherent. Let's do cyberpunk dystopia feudalism."

Oh dystopian Matrix world was also Yarvin's plan to avoid genocide but I never actually got that far before (and without factoring in how that will eventually be most/all people):

However, it helps us describe the problem we are trying to solve. Our goal, in short, is a humane alternative to genocide. That is: the ideal solution achieves the same result as mass murder (the removal of undesirable elements from society), but without any of the moral stigma. Perfection cannot be achieved on both these counts, but we can get closer than most might think.

The best humane alternative to genocide I can think of is not to liquidate the wards--either metaphorically or literally--but to virtualize them. A virtualized human is in permanent solitary confinement, waxed like a bee larva into a cell which is sealed except for emergencies. This would drive him insane, except that the cell contains an immersive virtual-reality interface which allows him to experience a rich, fulfilling life in a completely imaginary world.6

The virtual worlds of today are already exciting enough to distract many away from their real lives. They will only get better. Nor is productive employment precluded in this scenario--for example, wards can perform manual labor through telepresence. As members of society, however, they might as well not exist. And because cells are sealed and need no guards, virtualization should be much cheaper than present-day imprisonment.

Wow it's literally The Matrix after Humanity became the underclass.

I like virtualization because it can be made to scale. I don?t think there is any scenario under which San Francisco is burdened with more than a few thousand wards. Many other regions of the earth, however, contain large numbers of human beings whose existence may well prove an unequivocal liability to the owners of any ground on which they would reside. If so, they can be virtualized, creating giant human Wachowski honeycombs of former bezonians, whose shantytowns can be cleared and redeveloped as villas for retired oil-company executives.

Of course, virtualization is a drastic alternative and itself unlikely to happen. Charity is just too popular these days. Before anyone becomes a ward of the realm, any person or organization is free to adopt him as a dependent as a matter of mutual agreement. His new guardian is (a) responsible for his actions, and (b) free to tell him what to do: the ideal relationship for any attempt at rehabilitation. (It's basically what the Salvation Army does now, I believe.) If all else fails, there's always the honeycomb.

This is why I'm pro-abortion.

Lol imagine if I wrote this in some kind of debate/essay for school on being for vs against.

"I think people should have the choice to not participate in the honeycomb."

And people were just like. 😐

Of course things were simplier when I was in school. I mean I finished high school the year before he wrote this crap for one lol (although I was still in sixth form until 2009.)

This is all also a great argument in favour of antinatalism (often coming from people who claim to be pronatalists haha.)

Anyway back to the Collins'

It may appear that the Collinses' views are so far outside the mainstream that one could shrug off pronouncements as eccentric and alarmist. But the Collinses are part of a movement they call the "new right", which rejects some aspects of traditional conservatism and bills itself as pragmatic, family-oriented and anti-bureaucratic. They staunchly support the Republican ticket, Donald Trump and JD Vance, and billionaire Elon Musk.

Last year, Malcolm Collins said he thought the Isle of Man would be the best place to begin.

"I actually think that's the most viable place to do it. You're near the center of Europe, you're in a rapidly depopulating area, you can tell them look, this will obviously bring a lot of technology and investment to your country. But the great thing about a proposal like this is even if they turn it down, you can take it to other countries," Malcolm told the man purporting to be an investor at the time.

The funding never materialized and the proposal was never pitched to the Isle of Man, a British crown dependency located in the Irish Sea, because the man who claimed to be a wealthy investor was actually an undercover researcher with Hope Not Hate, a UK-based anti-racism group. It shared video recordings of the encounters with the Collinses - and a copy of their presentation - with the Guardian.

Asked about the slide deck in an interview with the Guardian last week in their home in Audubon, Pennsylvania, Simone and Malcolm, who work together and appear rarely to be apart, acknowledged that their proposal "wasn?t supposed to be public". But Simone Collins nevertheless said she stood by its core tenets "100%", including the idea of mass-producing embryos, and of giving people who they deem to be less productive members of society less voting power.

"If you are draining resources, you should have less influence," she said.

Asked about how it felt to be the subject of undercover research, Malcolm Collins said: "The experience was quite validating for both us and our movement." He added: "Now I think it is pretty clear that despite us not socially isolating people with toxic views, the worst views we actually have are being slightly elitist and weird eccentrics (which isn?t exactly surprising to anyone)."

*stripping democratic rights from an increasing underclass that could be 30% of the population easily (I assume more as time goes on,) who have been automated out of civilisation.

He has personally spoken to this couple in videos lol. Tbf I can't remember when this book I'm skimming through was published. Before he talked to them most likely. June 2022 so yeah, but also not long enough to be ignorant of people who think like this considering his social circle.



The only thing limiting them is power really.

In the end, post-industrial civilization has followed, and continues to follow, the precise same pattern as all other civilizations, and it has all the markers of being in "Winter," after which all previous civilizations met their ends. Fourthly, even if "the elite" is pursuing a secret eugenics policy, it wouldn't work. As we discussed, very high intelligence correlates with autism and thus
low empathy) low empathy; the non-empathic mind excels at systematizing, which better allows you to solve problems. It also correlates with being hyper-sensitive to stimuli and even with asthma, because those who can take in more information, and be more sensitive to their world, will better make sense of it.19 Breeding for super-high intelligence would thus eventually create a society full of people with serious psychological problems. Worse still, as people become more intelligent, their intelligence becomes narrower in focus, meaning that a superintelligent person often has trouble looking after himself, and he is low in other weak correlates of IQ, social skills being a good example. These high-IQ autistic people are rather like Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory: he is brilliant with computers but can never find his keys.20 A society full of people like this would fall apart and, low in instinct, such people would likely not breed much anyway. Societies can't function without the hoi polloi.

This is out of step with everything else you are saying (which sounds like it was ripped from an unreleased film script of an x-men movie tbh.)

I think really he just hates the people 'on the bottom' though tbh.

"There are too many bad weirdos (not genius) and not enough genius weirdos >:["

Why these conspiratorial arguments are popular is a fascinating issue. Due to increased meritocracy and centralization, our society has become increasingly cognitively stratified, with people tending to attain the position of which they are intellectually capable in a way that would not have been the case when society was more nepotistic.21 This, in turn, leads to greater genetic stratification, and there is clear evidence, for example, of social class differences in dominant blood type.22 This, in turn, would lead to distrust between social classes and people of different social classes decreasingly interacting and seeing the world increasingly differently--in a way, becoming "races."

Nevertheless, it is clearly simplistic to make a binary, essentialist division between "the elite" and "the rest," as if the two never cross-over. This takes its most extreme
form in perceiving the elite as, somehow, a different species, something predicted, as discussed above, not just by declining trust levels but also by declining intelligence. These arguments are clearly the stuff of paranoid fantasy. As somebody who went to an "elite" university, I met plenty of students who were, without question, part of the British "upper crust." Indeed, I often met their parents as well, some of whom had not been born elite. I lived with, and was friends with, an Old Etonian who was the grandson of a baronet on one side and the great-grandson of a peer-ofthe-realm on the other. He went on to be assistant private secretary to Prince Philip (1921-2021). He's not a lizard and, he has assured me, nor is Prince Philip.

I'm not sure why he assumes this would be reassuring to someone who doesn't trust people like him.

A related argument is that the elite will halt societal collapse by changing the conditions that are causing dysgenics. But these have been known about for centuries, and this all-powerful managerial class surely knows what's happening, yet they have done nothing. Such people will exploit the collapse and ensure that they are insulated from the chaos--like African despots--but they show no evidence of doing anything about it. Moreover, the elite is becoming less intelligent along with the broader population, and have long been doing so. Thus, they are decreasingly able to do anything about it and are increasingly short-term in their outlook and strategy.

They plan to do this whether they agree with you or not.

Your thinking isn't actually that removed theirs is just a fantastical exaggeration of real attitudes people have.

People who espouse views like the ones outlined above are, in many ways, the new Gnostics. They see the world as run by Satan or, in secular terms, by an evil cabal of super-intelligent people.

The fact that this is an evolved cognitive bias should, itself, make us highly skeptical of it and of any hypotheses that appear to rationalize it. They are wild, unscientific speculations that reflects a paranoid personality where the world is, in effect, haunted by Demiurgic demons.

The film Waterworld (1995) foresees two castes of human.23 Another work in this genre is a young-adult science-fiction novel, The Guardians (1970). Here, the England of the year 2052 is an authoritarian regime divided into two completely separate areas: the modern and overpopulated "Conurbs" and the wealthy "County"

And The Time Machine. That's a common cognitive bias too though..

These may be fairy tales for adults. And, like the original fairy tales, they help us negotiate the crucibles of evolution. And with modernization, they might tell us something important that they older tales missed. The crucible of evolution have moved from warfare to Wokeism; from measles to Marxism. We?the noninfected? find ourselves like the little gang of noninfected in 28 Days Later. We must make our way to a safe area, find other non-infected, and keep the light of civilization burning.

Seeing everything as a virus is also a common cognitive bias and I'd guess has some connection to parasite stress?

Parasite-stress theory, or pathogen-stress theory, is a theory of human evolution proposing that parasites and diseases encountered by a species shape the development of species' values and qualities, proposed by researchers Corey Fincher and Randy Thornhill.

The differences in how parasites and diseases stress people's development is what leads to differences in their biological mate value and mate preferences, as well as differences across culture.[1] Parasites causing diseases pose potential ecological hazards and, subsequently, selection pressures can alter psychological and social behaviours of humans, as well as have an influence on their immune systems.[2]

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1607398113

People who are more avoidant of pathogens are more politically conservative, as are nations with greater parasite stress. In the current research, we test two prominent hypotheses that have been proposed as explanations for these relationships. The first, which is an intragroup account, holds that these relationships between pathogens and politics are based on motivations to adhere to local norms, which are sometimes shaped by cultural evolution to have pathogen-neutralizing properties. The second, which is an intergroup account, holds that these same relationships are based on motivations to avoid contact with outgroups, who might pose greater infectious disease threats than ingroup members. Results from a study surveying 11,501 participants across 30 nations are more consistent with the intragroup account than with the intergroup account. National parasite stress relates to traditionalism (an aspect of conservatism especially related to adherence to group norms) but not to social dominance orientation (SDO; an aspect of conservatism especially related to endorsements of intergroup barriers and negativity toward ethnic and racial outgroups). Further, individual differences in pathogen-avoidance motives (i.e., disgust sensitivity) relate more strongly to traditionalism than to SDO within the 30 nations.

But it definitely seems connected to genocide (people also discuss fetuses as parasites which is something most conservative people take issue with despite viewing post birth humans as parasites after they're born though the writer I'm quoting does not fall into this group afaik, I think he's in favour of progressive women - most really - not reproducing):

The body-parasite metaphor is a figure of speech that compares a person or group to a parasite that lives in or on another person or group. It's often used to describe people who are freeloaders or exploiters.

https://www.libraryofsocialscience.c..._metaphor.html

Musolff's fundamental argument is that the metaphor of the German people as a body--and the Jew as a deadly parasite within this body--had "cognitive significance:" providing a "conceptual basis" for Nazi ideology and genocidal policies that culminated in the Holocaust.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl...rmin-parasites

Devastating atrocities often accompany dehumanizing rhetoric that evokes disgust. As recently as the 1990s, the Rwandan genocide was preceded by Hutu propaganda describing the Tutsi as cockroaches. Members of the Hutu militia set up roadblocks, checked identification cards for ethnicity, and murdered Tutsi Rwandans. Neighbors slaughtered neighbors with machetes. Children were massacred. By the end of the war, an estimated 1 in 10 Rwandans, mostly Tutsi, had been assassinated.

According to psychologist David Matsumoto and his colleagues, combining feelings of disgust with contempt and anger is particularly potent. Leaders who generate these three emotions at once can engender violence against the targets of their dehumanization.

It's also obviously how some women talk about men.

I think what disgusts me the most on a civilisational/species level is how, everytime this ends up happening people act later like it was this terrible atrocity that they don't want to ever happen again. And then it happens again. Because people aren't being 'economically resourceful' enough or are too weird.

Consistent with this, among bisexual females--though not lesbians--involvement in a homosexual community is positively associated with depression and suicidal ideation, implying that their sexuality is a manifestation of an underlying confusion.33

Do you think part of that might be that homosexual communities are homosexual (not bisexual?)

A parallel evolutionary theory of lesbianism is that female sexual fluidity has evolved because males are sexually aroused by females, all else being equal, who have a tendency towards bisexuality or towards temporary lesbianism. This would possibly be because if a sexually unsatisfied female had the capacity to become homosexual, this would decrease the probability that this female would cuckold the male.15

Oh no as a group bisexual and 'mostly heterosexual' women have sex with more men according to research not less (I could be wrong but this is what I remember.) Also more sexually adventurous on average and less restricted than homosexual or heterosexual women (this is just on a group level obviously. I'm not exclusively attracted to one sex but I'm boring af irl and lazy too.) Some elements of personality seem to be closer to heterosexual men. That's why bisexual women get stereotyped as being slutty which they hate because of social rules/norms and tbf they're still not as slutty as men.

Men hide their sluttyness by being mostly into women who are heterosexual. But I see you over there. Making subreddits.

I wrote this the other day (I'm editing this post a lot. So close to never posting this):

r/letboysbemanipulated Exists so we don't clog up r/letgirlshavefun and for a place for them to find prey.

'Prey' I like that.

That's very considerate of you.

how it feels to scroll through r/letgirlshavefun knowing i wont meet girls like them irl

I am in deep pain. Sad reality is that they dont leave their house.

I don't really either.

crazy thing is i know plenty of women like this they're just not like this *to me* (most of them are lesbians)

Makes sense I guess.

I'm in the unfortunate position of being socially anxious and lacking in social/sexual scripts. Basically a robot (also non-binary ( but I'm into submissive guys from a distance.)

As a woman who has made the first move several times I can tell you that a lot of men like the idea of being asked out a lot more than actually being asked out

True lol. Well also the idea that no guy will reject you. I've been rejected by guys I didn't even ask out/express interest in.

Me interacting with women from r/letgirlshavefun 🥺👉👈

I thought boys weren't allowed over there?

Moids aren't

But... but rule 2 clearly states:

> IF I SEE ANY OF YOU CHUCKLEFUCKS IN THAT SUB BEING ANNOYING I'M GONNA FUCKING KILL YOU

Easy fix, don't be annoying

With some of them it literally is... But I feel like a lot there just hate guys, so I'd gladly avoid direct discussions there

I've had some even dm me after I said something nice. But yet. I feel like there are deff some misandrists there

Lol well I looked at the other sub and it's a spin off of a femcel sub which seemed somewhat tounge in cheek (the femcel sub,) and the other sub was created to be even less like that but considering the roots yes there would be and somewhat odd these guys are congregating around that space lol.

Especially if you're shy and struggle with women anyway.

Not a member of this place but it'd be safe to assume they don't like people from here, no?

Seems it'd be one-sided

There seem to be women coming here to interract from somewhere... I found this sub by looking at someones recent post history from the role reversal sub...

It seems like an unstructured space though. I haven't found what I'm looking for. I liked the subreddit description.

Im always getting that sub reccomended on my feed and lately also this one , why that might be 🤔.
Funny to read tho , sometimes even a bit scary.

I'd comment there more often as some of the girls there do indeed like getting dm's but they looooove ghosting guys over there. I had better luck femboys on other subreddits.

Someone said that 7-8 guys messaged her when someone asked her, so I can imagine that'd be too much to deal with.

I thought part of the point of this sub was to be a place for them to claim us

I only make the effort to respond to guys who post photos with amazing long hair so far.

It's super effective apparently.

The post on some subreddit possibly fake by the catholic guy whose girlfriend wanted to turn him into a catboy and who said he was very neat and tidy so couldn't find clothes to wear after she replaced his robe with a dress in the middle of the night was very cute though. But when I found that it was an old post + not what he was looking for + he wasn't single.

Maybe that's why all the guys are joining the church in the US now to make themselves more suitable for corruption 🤔 no lol.

And you know, the unposted thing went on like that.

But I don't actually want to have sex with people. They're scary. I don't like the idea of bottoming during piv either really. I'm just perverted and have corruption fetishes etc. It's important people understand that and don't get annoyed. Someone was annoyed cause I talked about sexual stuff so much but said I'm grey-sexual but I based this on my behaviour and lack of desire irl. Grossed me out during sexual stuff with my ex-bf. I still think about/worry about that lol. Even when I'm just talking to myself. It goes back to when I was 7 (no I was 8) and gave this younger boy a lapdance without knowing what I was doing (just in hindsight guess it was sort of like that,) then when he asked me to do it again because he was into it I got grossed out. Or maybe it has nothing to do with that at all.



I'm not trying to trick you though. I won't put out or [BEEP] you.

I'm non-binary though. There aren't studies on people like me really lol.

Bisexual women expect to have an orgasm with women more than with men

As they should. (According to research again.) That's what you get for being annoying and writing books like this.

You've let your entire team down. The Tumblr council will be discussing this at our biannual performance review and we will consider creating a new gender just for you.

We stopped inviting people to their performance review after the incident.



Anyway that distracted me from finding evidence of what I'd previously heard.

Bisexual women exhibit personality traits and sexual behaviors more similar to those of heterosexual males than heterosexual women, including greater openness to casual sex and more pronounced dark personality traits.

This doesn't specify with men though (also this study looked at bisexual women and 'mostly heterosexual' women seperately but found similarities there and differences from the exclusively heterosexual group,) but I'm sure some studies have looked at that and found that. There was also a study suggesting that since 2008 or something increasingly more (gradual increase,) of bisexual women have had exclusively male sexual partners in the previous few years or so or something like that.

Among men ages 18-44, homosexuality correlates with sex acts as you'd expect. The gayer the man, the less likely he is to have had any kind of sex with a woman.

But this pattern doesn't hold among women? women who say they're attracted mostly to men are even more likely to report having had vaginal sex. Isn't that odd? A woman who's mostly rather than entirely straight presumably diverts some of her sexual energy away from men. How does she end up more likely to have had vaginal intercourse?

Move on to anal sex, and the pattern gets even stranger. Again, women attracted mostly to men are more likely to say they've had anal sex with a man than are women attracted only to men. And in the case of anal sex, the gap is huge: While 30 percent of the totally straight women say they've had anal sex, 55 percent of the mostly straight women say they've done it. But get this: Among women who say they're attracted equally, mostly, or exclusively to women, the figure is 41 percent. Lesbian and bisexual women are more likely than totally straight women to say they've had anal sex with a man.

Bisexual women also disproportionately write gay male fanfiction (which features anal sex more often,) and heterosexual women really love watching lesbian porn so there's something going on with them too.

?Here's my best guess: In many if not most cases, openness to experimentation is driving everything else. Adventurousness makes a woman more likely to try various sex acts with men. And at the same time, it makes her more likely to express interest in other women. This factor would have to be strong enough in bisexual women, on average, to overcome the statistical effects of clear-cut lesbians who do nothing sexual with men.

For bisexual people yeah definitely. It's true for bisexual men as a group as well compared to heterosexual men.

It doesn't necessarily translate to behaviour - lots of people never have sex and just use porn/fiction or whatever.

In terms of understanding exclusive lesbians, known as "butches," the evolutionary explanations seem to crossover with those advanced for male homosexuality, which we will examine below.

Oh, your first mistake was thinking all the butches are exclusive (though I think when they're not they often like drag queens and femboys,) the second was assuming exclusive femme women don't exist, and the third that bisexuals don't significantly differ from heterosexual women.

It gets pretty complicated.

Actually there were many other mistakes/issues before and after lol but yeah. The entire ideology is on a spectrum of genocidal thinking etc.

Another manifestation of developmental instability is lefthandedness, as it implies a highly asymmetrical brain. Lefthandedness levels are increasing across time, consistent with increasing mutational load.66

It worked out pretty well for my mum who is left handed. I would say she's been the most succesful person in her family (of her four siblings who are/were right handed,) and the rest of my immediate family (who are right handed.)

Lol #mutantgenes 💅

As previously explained, in 1800, the child mortality rate was 50 percent; it is now 1 percent in Western countries, as already noted.50 Before the Industrial Revolution, those
who had mutations (which are almost always detrimental to health) were purged from the population every generation. These mutations of the body, which led to a poor immune system and dying from childhood diseases, were comorbid with mutations of the mind, such as inclinations towards maladaptive sexuality.51

As I have explored in an earlier book, At Our Wits' End, the first group that breeds is people with low intelligence. There is a -0.2 correlation in developed countries between fertility and intelligence, and the relationship exists even when controlling for socioeconomic factors. This may seem like a small relationship, but the result is that Western Europe lost about 15 IQ points between 1880 and the year 2000; this is the difference between a policeman and a high school teacher, or between the same teacher and a science professor. Such a change means that the percentage of the population with very high intelligence--an IQ of above 130: the highly influential and leading academics, lawyers, doctors and politicians-- falls from 14 percent of the population to just 2 percent. Those directing the society, in other words, become dramatically stupider. And it is a society where more people need to be managed and directed, because those who are mentally retarded--with an IQ of below 70--increases from 2 percent to 14 percent.

You can always tell he's very unhappy about this:

With the Industrial Revolution, more and more people with more and more mutations--that would have caused them to die in childhood and thus not reproduce under harsher conditions?began to survive and pass on their genes. They walk among us. This is leading to an increasingly genetically sick population. This process is known as "dysgenics."61 The result has been a rise across

There are billions more people so even if there are less as a percentage of the whole there are probably still more. What could be stopping them?

Here's a good example. In the UK paganism and shamanism are the fastest growing religions:

Shamanism is expanding faster than any other religion, with the number of people saying they practise it rising from 650 in 2011 to 8,000 in 2021 in England and Wales. The result might prove controversial, as the Shamanism UK website asserts "it is not a religion, more an authentic expression of mankind's spirituality".

More established are pagans, who number 74,000 people (up from 57,000 in 2011) and who gather most in Ceredigion, Cornwall and Somerset, and wiccans, who number 13,000. Wicca is sometimes described as a witchcraft tradition whose roots lie in pre-Christian religious traditions, folklore, folk witchcraft and ritual magic.

How many people have noticed this or discuss it at all? Are these groups more influential than Islam and Christianity?

There was some discussion after the census but not really on an ongoing basis. There was also some discussion about radicalisation in prisons like one article I found. There are some far right pagans so that bothers some left wing people but 'the left (tm)' and social progressives seem to love Paganism so they're not willing to let that go. The same thing happens with weird far right LGBT+ groups online - it just becomes completely incoherent (like tumblr vs 4chan.) The right hate Islam though so there's nothing stopping them there.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-armed-forces/

Beard-loving pagans are fastest growing religion in Armed Forces

Numbers have more than doubled in five years as the Army lifts its century-old ban on facial hair

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglob...security-risk/

Germanic Contemporary Paganism and radicalisation in English and Welsh prisons: An overlooked security risk

Since the 2011 census, paganism has more than doubled in the UK. Here, Risteard McDonald outlines how elements of paganism are being uniquely wielded for far-right radicalisation in prisons, and what could be done about it.

Germanic Contemporary Paganism (GCP), the academic term for Norse Paganism, has seen a complex and controversial history, especially in its misappropriation and deployment by far-right actors for nefarious purposes. Often being used as a symbolic treasure chest for fascist groups to recruit disaffected white men, it has been linked to a rise in radicalisation in the Anglosphere, playing a unique role as a tool for radicalisation within English and Welsh prisons. To unravel this issue, we need to delve into the intertwined narratives of religious identity, political extremism, and prison culture.

Reddit discussion from 3 years ago:

Asatru and its growth is largely associated with Nazis. I can't comment on the motivations of Icelanders, but generally speaking, if you run into someone online preaching Asatru, they'll tell you something about how it's a reclamation and expression of their superior white heritage.

Anecdotally, I've encountered it a couple dozen times, and never in any other context.

Nazis hijack religions. Dont demonize a religion because nazis ruin everything.

No they're very weird - the far right in general I mean. Like any outlier thing at all that's what I'm saying - video game groups, LGBT+ groups, minority religions and spiritualities, other subcultural stuff. I think they're trolls.

Also this of course:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

COINTELPRO (a syllabic abbreviation derived from Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert and illegal[1][2] projects conducted between 1956 and 1971 by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political organizations that the FBI perceived as subversive.[3][4][5][6] Groups and individuals targeted by the FBI included feminist organizations,[7][8] the Communist Party USA,[9] anti-Vietnam War organizers, activists in the civil rights and Black power movements (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr., the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party), environmentalist and animal rights organizations, the American Indian Movement (AIM), Chicano and Mexican-American groups like the Brown Berets and the United Farm Workers, and independence movements (including Puerto Rican independence groups, such as the Young Lords and the Puerto Rican Socialist Party). Although the program primarily focused on organizations that were part of the broader New Left, they also targeted white supremacist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan[10][11] and the National States' Rights Party.[12]

Anyway that about sums that up. You could say the presence of polarising extremes within a movement is a sign of bad faith actors fucking about and psychopaths but meh. Maybe it's healthier in a sense?

The fact that governments have done stuff like this repeatedly and then they're like 'people are so paranoid' like well *points* It's not like it's never happened.

In addition, there would be two kinds of homosexual male. The stable kind, that there had always been, and the "mutant" kind, who may be becoming more prevalent. In line with this, as we will explore in more detail below, younger brothers are more likely to be homosexual, due to the pregnant mother's immune response to proteins emitted by the male fetus. This results, in effect, in feminizing the fetus--and the mother's response strengthens with each male fetus. Accordingly, if the mother had an overactive immune system, due to mutation, then she would be more likely to produce a homosexual son, even as her first son.52

"They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I'm not a 'good person.' I'd wager something like 50% of the population aren't 'good people' - troubling. I don't think Trump or this writer are good people either though, although I'm sure they think they are.

So who is?

Also given the things he writes, and the things others in his sphere say, people are ultimately right not to trust any of them...

I actually had a pretty high opinion of intelligence until coming into contact with certain intelligent people lol.



It seems closely related to class and the concept of 'glamour.'

I'm sure people are similary disenchanted by contact with religion because it employs this (cathedrals and such.)

[Nyctophilia]

twitter: puppygirls are just trying to not grow up and don't take responsibility and are apolitical and also it's a fucking disgusting fetish
the puppygirl hacker polycule:
there aren't enough hacks against the police, so we took matters into our own paws

I don't think anyone accused them of being apolitical tbf. Niche subcultures on twitter with lots of trans women in tend to be infamously very political.

Hackers leaked thousands of files from Lexipol, a Texas-based company that develops policy manuals, training bulletins, and consulting services for first responders.

The manuals, which are crafted by Lexipol?s team of public sector attorneys, practitioners, and subject-matter experts, are customized to align with the specific needs and local legal requirements of agencies across the country.

But the firm also faces criticism for its blanket approach to police policies and pushback on reforms.

The data, a sample of which was given to the Daily Dot by a group referring to itself as "the puppygirl hacker polycule," includes approximately 8,543 files related to training, procedural, and policy manuals, as well as customer records that contain names, usernames, agency names, hashed passwords, physical addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers.

Among the manuals seen by the Daily Dot, agencies include police departments, fire departments, sheriff?s offices, and narcotics units.

"Today in the cyberpunk world."

[Nyctophilia]

What fictional character was your gay awakening?

You know I can never answer this question easily. Aside from never having a moment where I had some kind of epiphany I also can't really remember the first fictional character who was male or female.

I also guess it depends if you're counting fetish stuff or not. Because some moments in childhood were more about my interest in corruption-adj/transformation type stuff. I don't feel it was really about any specific person and more certain other themes.

I'm going to be more creative and say Loki because he's genderfluid and the first person I read fanfiction about with various different gender expression/body types etc. Can literally shapeshift and so on.

Do custom-made video game characters count? Because it was my Sims lol

Yeah I've had a bunch of moments with Sims too and custom clothing I downloaded. I think at some point I also downloaded some 18+ mods as a teenager.

YES I BELIEVE PEOPLE when they say what their sexuality is. Might as well be a requirement of being bi. But I can't help but wonder when thinking about some of my monkey-brained straight homies.. how hard is it to trick yourself? Are you sure you aren't ruling things out prematurely? Are you REALLY deriving all your attraction from "bottom up" processing of your feelings? Or is there a bit of "top down" bias that is ruling stuff out?

Based on research straight guys have some 'response' to femboys but less than for trans women (with breasts,) which is in turn less than for cis women.

There are guys who prefer trans women (some id as bisexual and some don't,) and they're not really bisexual (there's a sexological term for this sexuality,) since in research they don't have much of a response to more masculine guys. Probably they might be more into femboys sometimes too.

Meh. In my experience, people who talk about liking femboys are online folks who watch a bunch of porn and hentai but not irl people. Irl, femboys are often young guys, many are teens even, and as they age, their feminine features go away. And to remain femme, if they don't actually take the steps to transition like mtf/trans femmes, they have to put in the work to stay shaved, to dress femme, to not gain too much weight or muscle mass, etc. And in my eyes, its not a real thing. If you cant like the guy unless he is putting 300℅ efforts to feminize himself, then you don't like the guy. Like, imagine the guy is sick for a few weeks and does not have time or energy for shaving his face and body, to do his make up or to wear cute outfits. Well if thats your bf, congrats, youre with a dude. Plus, femboys are never above the age of 30. So what about that? You date a guy and get rid of him when he ages because he loses his femme features? Frankly, in my eyes, as a femme man, i always dodges bi men who say they like women and femboys. No no, i want to date a bi man who likes women and MEN because I dont want to be discarded the moment i lose my feminine traits.

Probably.

I'm not very into people irl but from a distance I like a variety of guys preferably with long hair and slim. They don't have to be femboys and pass as women though, in fact it's unlikely I'll be into them if they pass that well and if they're not androgynous at all. But it might be splitting hairs a bit I dunno. I assume some guys I've been into are kind of younger looking. Just a lot of the guys who are femboys, post online trying to get male attention won't really be my type and the anime characters where they're overly cutesy.

Though with that being said I posted photos of musicians I found attractive on another forum once and a straight guy once said 'it's weird when a guy is pretty enough that he tricks my brain into being into him.' He wasn't like a 'femboy' though which in any case wasn't a thing that existed back then.

Actually one of those guys was this guy (but not this gif):



^ he was like 42 or something here I think? It's unusual for guys in their 40s and 50s to stay androgynous looking though yeah.

The gif was taken from this music video I believe:



I personally find him more attractive with long hair though. But when I got into him initially and his music he had shorter hair like that.



I find the distinctions/lines kind of interesting. Because there are subtle differences between the kind of androgyny straight guys can be into and they also are more into neoteny. But then sometimes it goes out the window especially with 2D characters lol. I was surprised to hear someone's landlord assumed Sephiroth was a woman (also Cloud but I think he's more androgynous looking despite the short hair,) and then Jeff Goldblum was confused about his gender recently in an interview I watched too..

My sexuality is super fetishistic. I'm very into nerdy looking people with glasses (again) atm. It's one of my several types.



I also really like lots of different voices but not all voices. That's something I like about audioporn. I found this woman with a Northern English accent which was hot but I'd never found that hot before lol so that was interesting? I've liked guys with pretty low voices before but I also really like high pitched voices like:





^ His voice seems to be a very aquired taste with people.

And also in general (listen to guys with high pitched voices lol.)

I found someone on twitter recently but she was a trans woman. I say that like I was searching (I'm too lazy for that generally.) I stumbled on her account while reading some tweets lol. She was 20 though... She had many recent tweets about topping guys and getting them pregnant and being into trans men. Hmm... It's not really my thing. (Bottoming. I dunno never liked the idea.) But I think femdom is more hot conceptually then dominant guys in this stage of my life.

I can read and enjoy romance stories more masculine guys in too but it's like the focus of the appeal will be purely the plot/romance stuff and no attraction to them as a 'object.' Often I'll even pretend they look like guys I find attractive while reading. Which actually is a problem though. On rare occasions in my life I've been attracted to more masculine guys though.

I dunno. I'm just being honest in this post really. I'm always aware that it sounds perverted, creepy and problematic attraction etc

I don't like the aspect of femboys that are closer to trans girls than they are to continuing to be male. Something strange hits me somewhere. It is possibly my lack of understanding about their own gender identity, as someone non-binary amab myself, I have gone through a lot of exploration to settle where I am.

But I'll continue to chat to the people I like irl and do the vibe checks 😄 another reason I say demi sexual most of the time, I need to get to know the person more even if I do find them asthetically attractive.

That seems presumptious though. It kind of annoys me when people keep pestering someone to come out as a trans woman just because they pass as female and look really feminine.

I think a lot of people who identify as femboys are young but personally, as i am aging, I prefer to look at older gay men who are feminine. I get inspired by their fashion choices for example. There is no age too old to do make up, paint nails, wear dress. But there is a style thats age appropriate and fitting. I think that as I age however, the men who once said they liked me because i was feminine will not like me anymore even if I still wear womens clothes, because then, ill just look like a gay crossdresser, and they dont actually like men so :v

I mean if the guys you are dating now are straight, then yeah you will age out of that market and it does seem like a lot of other gay guys like guys to be very masculine but perhaps not all.

Respectfully have to push back on this just for the sake of discussion because I think there are some assumptions made here too boldly. (Warning: yapping incoming)

Masculinity and femininity are not just presentations it is also energy. Someone who is attracted to a femboy is likely also going to be enamoured with generally a feminine guy even if they have like a moustache or something.

I can find masculine and feminine 'energy' attractive but no I won't be attracted to someone with a moustache. Whether their body language is masculine or feminine or anything in between or anything at all (cat and rabbit guys >.>)

A person who ends up on a relationship with a femguy is absolutely not going to lose interest if they like... don't shave for a week because most people would not do that with the women they date. If they did, being incredibly shallow would be the common denominator here, not a lack of true attraction.

I don't care too much if they have some stubble but I really am not into moustaches. I don't think most guys attracted to women would be OK with their girlfriend having a moustache either honestly.

I think it's probably even an aquired taste for straight women. This was a terrible example lol.

They tried really hard in the early 2010s with the finger tattoos and hipster stuff and all but it's just never stuck imo.

Im saying all this because a significant amount of people find out they are bi or gay by running into stuff like this online. And initially I dismissed it as some kink, I contextualized it as just something fantastical and that my immersion would be broken if I actually ran into a feminine guy in real life and the "guy" part of that ended up turning me off because I would have to come to terms with a potentially masculine voice and/or the unavoidable dick between their legs.

But as it turns out, that was not a deal breaker for my brain when this actually happened irl. Unfortunately the tools to navigate through this are basically never going to be created. Hetero is seen as the default, and even their guidelines are a pamphlet with very vague instructions for how to navigate their sexuality. The advice given to you as a [BEEP] person is honestly that you shouldn't even be queer, and it often ends up having people discover that through fetish-y means which makes it easy for people to interpret it that way or pass it off without much introspection.

And I...don't know how to condense the TL;DR part lol.

I'm kind of the opposite. Because I'm genetically female and was attracted to guys in fiction and famous guys etc I assumed it would probably work out irl with guys I had crushes on as that's just 'the norm' but instead had issues with relationships with real men and started questioning if I was asexual during my second relationship. I'm not sure if it was them or in general though. I think there were numerous issues going on there including my first boyfriend moving too quickly and pushing too many boundaries I had.

I think I'm both very picky, and also find it very easy to lose attraction irl.

I usually just show straight people Tatianna from RPDR and then they... aren't completely straight anymore all of a sudden lol

I'm not really attracted to drag queens typically so I assume this won't work for me.

Let me see.

I can see why this would work and her hair and makeup is sometimes attractive in some images and I haven't seen her in video, but it's just like in the way that women are hot you know? So I wouldn't count it for guys.

Not my cup of tea, but that makes it all the more funny that it can be straight kryptonite and not compute for my bi [BEEP] 😂

Not that you have to agree with me but:

"Tatianna Lipsyncing Do It Again at Town" is the name of the youtube video if you'd rather not click the link.

https://youtu.be/QfTpc1sl4-U?si=lGnB0yfoq1B1yR2A

I can't find the video I usually show friends! It was hotter. Maybe the person took it down :-( I'll have to find an even better one than the one I linked for my bi awakening schemes.

No I went to see if she'd lipsynced to a Doja song because she almost reminded me of her in one image or two, but it was just some other drag queens on the show lipsyncing to Boss [BEEP] that came up. I'm disapointed now. I had a dream.

Doja manages to be pretty attractive to me with very short hair for a few moments in this video. That's impressive considering my obnoxious hair thing from like 1:22 to 1:41:



This is a great track like musically lol:



B̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶u̶y̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶k̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶i̶p̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶n̶g̶.̶

Bruh this reminds me of my bi-cycle I've had recently where I started to question if I don't actually like girls because a woman I like I only felt attracted to her as her role but not the actress herself in her role she was more masculine so I started to think what if I don't actually like girls and I only like her because she is styled boyish?

Was that Rosa from Brooklyn 99 lol? I mean she doesn't look masculine though, but her persona is. She actually auditioned for the part of Amy initially.



I guess there are a bunch of others like that though. I don't watch a lot of new TV shows. I don't think there are a lot of butch or androgynous actresses either, but they should try to hire some where possible for those parts considering the lack of representation.

The ones who do exist don't often get cast in more feminine roles... I think Kate Moennig (who is more androgynous than butch anyway,) was cast in stuff a couple of times relatively speaking but it requires too much suspension of disbelief to pretend she's straight in that one minor role I'm thinking of that I saw some scenes of. Though maybe she prefers to play sapphic roles (or roles where relationships aren't relevant,) anyway I dunno.

This was her most feminine role lol:

This reminds me of a TikTok series where this woman created a matrix with elf, human and dwarf on the side and prince, warrior and king across the top.

Elf prince is essentially femme boy. She talked about how difficult it is to stay an elf as you grow up. She gave Leonardo DiCaprio as an example. I imagine Timothy Chalamet may also follow this path.

It is creepy to think essentially 'child like' is a quality that's often attractive to large portions of society.

Well neoteny is attractive to people who are attracted to women typically, and sometimes to others. For evolutionary reasons most likely but also because it makes it easier to have protective feelings I think connected to romantic attraction. I think a lot of people were sharing the term 'twink death' too when talking about him at one point which is pretty messed up. I mean I don't feel bad for him - he has no issues finding a never ending stream of young women to date and then break up with allegedly. (He's kind of become infamous for that and that might even be connected to why he was chosen for the other discourse.) But you know in general, for other guys who aren't rich/high status. It's pretty mean and lots of women don't care as much about physical appearence but people who are into 'elves' are pretty loud I am aware.

It's because elves don't exist irl.

Leonardo Dicaprio's exes have all joined the chat

That's what I was saying haha.

I'm trying to decide whether this or the 'puppy girl hacker polycule' group is the most peak cyberpunk very online moment of this month so far:

twitter: puppygirls are just trying to not grow up and don't take responsibility and are apolitical and also it's a fucking disgusting fetish
the puppygirl hacker polycule:
there aren't enough hacks against the police, so we took matters into our own paws

I don't think anyone accused them of being apolitical tbf. Niche subcultures on twitter with lots of trans women in tend to be infamously very political.

Hackers leaked thousands of files from Lexipol, a Texas-based company that develops policy manuals, training bulletins, and consulting services for first responders.

The manuals, which are crafted by Lexipol?s team of public sector attorneys, practitioners, and subject-matter experts, are customized to align with the specific needs and local legal requirements of agencies across the country.

But the firm also faces criticism for its blanket approach to police policies and pushback on reforms.

The data, a sample of which was given to the Daily Dot by a group referring to itself as "the puppygirl hacker polycule," includes approximately 8,543 files related to training, procedural, and policy manuals, as well as customer records that contain names, usernames, agency names, hashed passwords, physical addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers.

Among the manuals seen by the Daily Dot, agencies include police departments, fire departments, sheriff?s offices, and narcotics units.

"Today in the cyberpunk world."

One thing I'll say about them is a lot manage to live their polycule puppygirl life in real life as well. So good for them.

I dunno everything has already been said about this topic endlessly so whatever. Summarised in this video really:



My favourite parts conceptually were:

'generational sexualities'

and

'simplistic boomer sexuality'

[Nyctophilia]

"I'm the Hulk, Jake is Iron Man."

I dunno... When it comes to Marvel Jake seems more like Deadpool but without the perverted elements which Charles has instead (though Charles is more accidentally that way for the most part.) Actually I think if you mixed Charles and Jake together with Adrian Pimento, you'd probably get something like Deadpool.



Nah I guess Pimento would be the Deadpool of BB99 although a bit too unhinged.



I don't know who Jake would be then, but he is boyish in a similar way.

Rest in peace Andre Braugher.

Aw man, I almost forgot :(

I didn't. It definitely changes the experience of watching the show a bit.

[Nyctophilia]

Over this past weekend, I saw a comment on r/donorconceived that said having an unrelated adult man living in the household creates a huge risk of physical and sexual abuse for children in that household, that it's a problem that "proponents of gamete donation" never discuss it, and implying that families pursuing donor conception should be counseled by their doctor about the supposed increased risk that the social father would abuse their children. And I'll be honest, I was offended. I'm married to a trans man and I don't think I should have to listen to my doctor parrot the same bullshit conservative assholes have been spewing about my husband and people like him being dangerous to children.

I responded to this comment with a link to a study which found that adoptive families are not more likely to abuse children than biological families, and pointed out that opponents of LGBT rights have used the myth of non-biological fathers being uniquely dangerous to children as an argument against same-sex adoption. We had a short discussion from there with no name-calling or rudeness, so imagine my surprise when I checked Reddit this morning and found a notification that my comment was removed by the mod team.

"While non-DCP members can contribute comments when offering helpful or factual information, content that is offensive, unhelpful, or potentially upsetting to the DCP community is not permitted."

I have to wonder whether my comment was deemed "potentially upsetting" because that person didn't like being told they were repeating a homophobic talking point, or if it was "potentially upsetting" because I asked the commenter to admit to some nuance. I never even said that they were incorrect-- just that the reality is way more complicated than "all non-related adult men are a huge risk to the kids around them." That is the reality-- a social dad is nowhere near as dangerous as Mom's New Boyfriend, and you can't treat the two situations as comparable when talking about how to keep kids safe. It only ends up hurting an already vulnerable population by reinforcing the myth we're all groomers and pedophiles.

It's not a huge risk its a risk - involving step parents and tbf the research that exists on this topic is about cisgender men, not trans men. It's often men criticising themselves.

I also don't think that research tends to include adopted parents. It's about step parents. Adopted children tend to have more developmental issues anyway which do lead to more negative outcomes (not sure about abuse,) this is likely genetic often though because of the kind of people who give their kids up for adoption + early life experiences with poor quality genetic parents before adoption.

It's an opinion based on the outdated notion that a child needs a mother and a father to be successful, though. In reality, studies confirm children do best with two parents, regardless of gender.

Studies have also consistently shown that children with same-sex parents are just as healthy and well-adjusted in terms of their emotional, social, and cognitive development. There's even some that show our children fare better than our counterparts. But you'll never hear them say two moms or two dads are the ideal. Why? Homophobia.

So, yes. It's an opinion, but it's factually incorrect and I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who shares that line of thinking who isn't heteronormative af in their defense of it.

Yes that's true some studies show better outcomes. Depends on what you're looking at too. I think educational outcome might be better sometimes from what I remember.

In many cases of course samesex outcomes are better due to added screening/thought being put into the process of reproduction then say a heterosexual woman who hooks up with a criminal fuckboy and gets pregnant by accident.

I've read a study suggesting that girls raised by two dads had better self esteem or emotional health or something like that anyway before.

There are also some studies that MRAs like to reference suggesting that while single parent households with mums have worse outcomes, single parent households with dads don't. (Probably due to the higher bar for dads getting custody if this is true, though I haven't looked into the research due to nobody ever bothering to link studies.) I also imagine there are differences again genetically between people who are widowed (more common with single dads,) and once again the offspring of the fuckboy you accidentally got pregnant with and didn't abort.

It's funny though because those guys are usually homophobic and trying to encourage women to form relationships with men, be traditional etc yet they often make the case instead that two dads are at least equally good. 😏

I always tell them to find a male partner.

Realistically though two straight dads would parent differently to two gay dads. Different personality traits on average.

Speaking of all of this though:

Just A Baby App - is it legit?

After having our pockets unceremoniously lightened by Olive Fertility, we were recommended the "Just a Baby" app by another couple TTC. Has anyone used it? It feels a bit like Tinder, but has significantly more options than the fertility centers. Is this a hotbed of scammers or a viable alternative to resorting to expensive American sperm banks?

It?s like the dating apps cishet women use - lot of sketchy dudes looking for sex, but with enough vetting you can eventually find a decent guy.

We looked on there in case we needed a backup, but ultimately our friend choice worked out.

Do you mind telling me how you asked your friend? I just don't know how to go about doing something like that, and it's so much more preferable.

I forgot to respond to this! We ended up asking via email because we couldn't see him in person in a timely fashion due to COVID. We just explained that we were starting to try, why we wanted him as our donor, then what the next steps would be if he said yes. Then we gave him a couple of months to decide.

Yes it's legit but it wasn't very functional for this purpose. Try the "GenePool App" uses scientific algorithms for Matchmaking Sperm Donors, Recipients and potential Co-parents.

It?s horrific. 100 percent of the guys on there are over the age of 65, they have a breeding fetish (one in two profiles say "NI ONLY NI ONLY NI ONLY"), or they're serial donors. They all weirdly enjoy looking at their sperm under microscopes, too.

I'm sure some people have had success, and I didn't feel unsafe per se. I just needed a shower afterwards. I'd try a FB group instead.

I hesitate to ask but I'm assuming NI refers to having sex with the donor? That?s so gross.

"Natural insemination"

It does - it's actually not even a form of donor conception, if a p is in a v? that's your child's legal father.

Well it's predictable for an app like that but kind of gross.

I've used the app as a single male. Ive met lets say some interesting characters and some really genuine folks as well. I have donated to one same sex couple so far via AI and they were successful.

Still on the app and talking with some other families to potentially helping someone else...

You'll get some wild offers and characters on the app.. just have to keep trying and vetting folks from the get go... the pervs will out themselves fairly quickly..

Do you think if this were to take off people will gradually evolve to be more and more ambivalent about piv as the people who want it the most will be rejected as creepy? Interesting to think about.

Well the same thing happens anyway naturally I guess but maybe it would accelerate the process. At the very least only people who are capable of being polite and not telling people what they want will reproduce in this environment.

I'm very interested in how this dynamic would effect evolution too:

It all sounds good. But what about a guy looking to have a baby with someone? I mean just to co parent no need for intimacy.

I think if it became super common we'd increasingly become a species where people don't want sex as much and also can only achieve it via sneaky covert means where they hide intent.

The ones who can't hide and convincingly show good parental qualities die out.

Only some high status guys seem to get a pass. Like Elon who is creepy and would be rejected by most women but Grimes is obsessed with space and has done many drugs etc.

If standards are lower for high status guys - you should assume they will make worse parents outside of $$$

It?s possible. I was looking for such a person. I got two. First one didn?t disclose all his medical history until later when I found out they had a genetic disease that can be inherited to the baby. The second one went MIA after I?d moved out of the town for a short while and asked him if he?d like to try again later in the year when I returned. So after those even I decided to take a break😂. But I?m still on the lookout for someone

I like it though. The unfuckable guys with good parenting qualities will reproduce. Well they can be fuckable too but you know.

It could change the incentive structure perhaps.

(Again though since widespread abortion this selection process will have already been happening and might even partly explain why guys have less testosterone in recent generations - although people have complained in newspapers about men becoming more feminine for 140+ years. Someone on twitter collected examples at least that far back into the 1800s.)

The only downside in my biased opinion is that If taken to an extreme it would presumably destroy Human creativity.

Not all predatory Humans are creative but all creative Humans are predatory. Somewhat at least.

Well except for the band Rush. I'm not sure what happened there. Maybe because they didn't have many female fans for a long time (allegedly,) which is more circumstantial than reflective of instinct in that case, but their reputation is certainly very different from most of their peers in the music industry. Somehow Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson have been married to their wives for their entire adult life ...

But they might just be better than most at hiding things obviously and at any rate I'm not that informed about them.

There may be others too and kind of a spectrum.

Very parasocial but everyone will become a data point.

"Stick them in a terrarium and hand feed him lettuce like a turtle."

It's a very important quality.

I'm currently rooting for whatshisname. That actor. So bad with names. Paul Dano that's it.

Of course the death of art etc doesn't matter to conservatives. To quote Jordan Peterson - they're colourblind.



They don't appreciate it anyway.

So it's an easy sacrifice for them to make - not even a sacrifice definitionally - really.



Soul gets squeezed out
Edges get blunt
Demographic
Gives what you want

One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down, I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough

But it does come at a really great cost. I mean as a species Humans come at a really great cost and the mind controlling fungi and parasitic wasps D:

Parasitoid wasps are vulnerable to hyperparasitoid wasps. Some parasitoid wasps change the behavior of the infected host, causing them to build a silk web around the pupae of the wasps after they emerge from its body to protect them from hyperparasitoids.[20]

D: !

Hmm:



(Also it is valentines day today lol.)

"She knew the years of isolation had altered her behavior until she was different from others, but it wasn't her fault she'd been alone. Most of what she knew, she'd learned from the wild. Nature had nurtured, tutored, and protected her when no one else would. If consequences resulted from her behaving differently, then they too were functions of life's fundamental core."



Her debut novel, Where the Crawdads Sing, was released in 2018. It became one of the best-selling books of all time. It was adapted into a 2022 film of the same name.

Here is what I don't get: I knew about this because there were multiple articles about it when the book came out! It's been a thing! And yet untold dozens of people sat around conference rooms or zoom meetings in the process of buying the rights and turning it into a movie and not a single one said "this woman has a VERY questionable background and it's gonna bite us in the [BEEP] at some point"? Or did they decide they didn't care and any bad publicity would be blown off or ignored? I don't get it.

Why would it bite them in the [BEEP] when most creative people throughout history have had fucked up backstories and personal lives?

On March 30, 1996, the ABC news-magazine show Turning Point aired a documentary titled "Deadly Game: The Mark and Delia Owens Story", which included the filmed murder of an alleged poacher, executed while lying collapsed on the ground after having already been shot. The victim is not identified by the story's narrator, the journalist Meredith Vieira, nor is the identity of the person or persons who fired the fatal shots off-camera disclosed. The ABC script refers to the victim as a "trespasser".[22] The editor-in-chief of The Atlantic Jeffrey Goldberg subsequently interviewed Chris Everson, the ABC cameraman who filmed the killing of the alleged poacher. Everson told Goldberg that it was not a Zambian game scout but Christopher Owens who fired the fatal shots. Goldberg reported in an article called "The Hunted" in The New Yorker in 2010 that the Zambian police detective in charge of the subsequent investigation, Biemba Musole, had concluded that Mark Owens, with the help of his scouts, placed the victim's body in a cargo net, attached it to his helicopter, and then dropped it into a nearby lagoon. Musole led an effort to identify the alleged poacher, but did not succeed. The former Zambian national police commissioner, Graphael Musamba, told Goldberg that the investigation had been stymied by the absence of a body: "The bush is the perfect place to commit murder ? The animals eat the evidence."[22]

To this day, Delia Owens denies the incident, explaining that she was not involved and there was never a case. However, her novel Where the Crawdads Sing, has aroused suspicion from those on her book tour about the parallels between the main character Kya and her case, and Delia's own alleged accusation. The Owenses have denied the accusations.[22][23]

No charges were brought against Owens or her ex-husband Mark, or stepson Christopher.

In June 2022, Zambian police officials told Jeffery Goldberg that they believe that Delia Owens should be interrogated as a possible witness, co-conspirator, and accessory to felony crimes. Zambia's chief prosecutor Lillian Shawa-Siyuni told Goldberg that the investigation related to the killing of the alleged poacher, as well as other possible criminal activities in North Luangwa has been hampered by the lack of an extradition treaty between Zambia and the United States, and by ABC's apparent refusal to cooperate in the investigation, saying, "There is no statute of limitations on murder in Zambia...They are all wanted for questioning in this case, including Delia Owens."[22]

Captured prisoners were cruelly punished. One of the Owenses' former scouts recalled how detainees would sometimes be tied to stakes and left in the blistering sun all day. Another scout recounted that "Mark Owens told us that anyone with [game] meat or a weapon should have a beating."

seriously! I read some articles and they were trying to excuse it since apparently she lived on a different compound from the husband/son at the time, wasn't present and has been divorced from the husband for a while.

I get that it's a poacher but ? murdering someone extrajudicially is pretty goddamn awful. And then writing books with similar themes? She has major white savior vibes and a really insular/patronizing view of the countries she visited in Africa too. just not great

Was he a poacher though? The article states that there is no proof he was a poacher and the news called him a trespasser. Poacher or not, he was shot in cold blood. He was on the ground, wounded, unable to fight back and they executed him. I agree, not great. So messed up.

But they were poaching wildlife, so why are people so invested? Like that?s a serious crime. They didn't deserve to die but that takes a pretty shitty person to do, unless it was at some subsistence/poverty level.

Because? a bunch of well-to-do neo-colonialists murdered a defenseless man (or at least were complicit in the murder and facilitated a cover up)? And it was a man who was very obviously almost certainly in subsistence level poverty? And IIRC according to the article they didn?t even know for sure that he was a poacher? And then they hid the body, fled the country, and escaped prosecution? As you literally said, even if the victim had committed a crime he didn?t deserve to die. And poor local poachers clearly aren?t like asshole rich dentists or Trump spawn off to a country half a world away to kill animals for fun. Murderers of other murderers get charged in court. They shouldn?t be getting away with a modern day vigilante lynching. Why would people not be upset?

Edit: forgot to mention, and she's being feted for a book inspired by the situation, and making crazy money off it.

I hope you're not trolling. I'm replying to you in good faith so I hope you'll extend me the same courtesy.

🕵️🧑🏻🔬

[Nyctophilia]

My friend shared this band with me:



They're from Mexico apparently which kind of makes sense. I've noticed there's a much bigger surviving fanbase for rock music in Latin America.

They also remind me of someone else but not sure who. The singer sounds familiar I think? Unless I just heard them before at some point without realising lol. That's going to bug me lol. It's the chorus it's reminding me of something.

(Reading YT commments)

Maybe we're seeing the rise of the biggest female rock band...

All female they mean I guess? There aren't many to compare to tbf. There were a few around in the 90s. A few before too. Can hear more of a metal influence here as well.

Hmm. Most of the Riot grrrl bands were all female I guess. Jack off Jill had all female members at some points - they only released two albums but I liked them a lot. Hole almost did but not quite. Some others.

Biggest in terms of fame is presumably The Runaways though:

Seriously, This might be the best live act going in all of rock right now.

Hmmm, there are a lot of good rock bands right now so I'm not ready to hand them the crown so easily. I think they can definitely compete on show(wo)manship though.

No I don't agree either:





Tool aren't at their peak but still pretty great.

This band are good though, their performance is good (the energy.) I just think some musicians still touring have better music, but maybe if you limited it to bands that formed post 2010.

Although Jess and the Ancient Ones are also pretty good live (formed in 2010):



This band who were supporting Tool (saw them in 2024,) were also pretty good live too. The drummer was quite gymnastic and jumping up and down on the drumkit lol:



A lot of rock bands and rock muscians will be retiring in the coming decades and there aren't many replacements which is sad.

[Nyctophilia]

Biggest in terms of fame is presumably The Runaways though:

When I listen to the above song, I keep expecting it to go into the chorus of this song lol:



Anticlimatic.

Kim Wilde (born Kim Smith, 18 November 1960)[3] is an English pop singer. She first gained success in 1981 with her debut single "Kids in America", which peaked at No. 2 in the UK. In 1983, she received the Brit Award for Best British Female solo artist.[4

OK well. I didn't know that. That was somewhat misleading wasn't it?

Though in hindsight the guys singing with clearly English accents prob should have been a clue.

Reminds me of this:

The group found no success with their first two albums, but after a lineup change into what became their classic lineup, their third album, Crime of the Century (1974), was their breakthrough.[7][8] Initially a more experimental prog-rock group, they began moving towards a more pop-oriented sound with the album.[5] The band reached their commercial peak with 1979's Breakfast in America, which yielded the international top 10 singles "The Logical Song", "Breakfast in America", "Goodbye Stranger" and "Take the Long Way Home". Their other top 40 hits included "Dreamer" (1974), "Give a Little Bit" (1977) and "It's Raining Again" (1982).

Apparently singing about America is a great way to get famous here.

LOL thinking about it:

Born in Brynmawr and raised near Abergavenny, Diamandis later moved to London to become a professional singer, despite having little formal musical experience. In 2009, she came to prominence upon placing second in the BBC's Sound of 2010. Her debut studio album, The Family Jewels (2010), incorporated indie pop and new wave musical styles. It entered the UK Albums Chart at number five and was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry. The album's second single, "Hollywood", peaked at number 12 on the UK singles chart. Diamandis' second studio album, Electra Heart (2012), was a concept album about a character of the same name. The album explored electropop and dance-pop and became her first number one album in the United Kingdom. It was certified gold in the US and UK, and respectively produced the successful singles "Primadonna" and "How to Be a Heartbreaker".

But I guess these songs were bigger in the US:



^ I like this because it's in the desert.

Um:



Not the official music video LOL. That song is always going to be associated in my head with this random fanvideo I made now lol.....



It only works in reverse if you're Ministry:

True story: Ministry finally played this song live in 2023, after nearly 40 years! :D

I can't believe this song never blew up and became hugely successful, it's an awesome song with a potentially wide audience.

It takes a long time to work.

[Nyctophilia]

When The Cocaine Was Pure, White People Had Rhythm

Nah this is still mostly white people (tm) dancing. I'm white so I can say that.



In general it's deeply self-conscious and/or lacking in sensuality. Sometimes robotic or haughty instead.

The music isn't helping there either. Here are two of the whitest moments ever:



😐

Ron Swanson did his best here but the lead singer and most of the crowd were just having none of it.

im glad Anakin found his peace with singing.

And Ron Swanson on keys.





Grimes had to hire Charlie XCX here for her cover of Eminem's classic Mum's Spaghetti:





(No I just remembered this and had to fit it into this post.)

Also cause I learnt about this recently:

Mom's Spaghetti is a restaurant in Detroit, Michigan. It serves spaghetti-related items and is known for being opened by rapper Eminem in his hometown. The restaurant's name and premise are inspired by a line from his song "Lose Yourself" from the soundtrack to the 2002 movie 8 Mile, in which he says "There's vomit on his sweater already, mom's spaghetti." The restaurant also contains a merchandise shop, The Trailer, that houses the Robin suit from the music video of the single "Without Me".[2][3]

Lol I'm just learning about this but that's great.

Probably mostly from coming from colder climates or ones with more rain/shit weather. You also notice such cultures are less touchy/feely in general.

Here's Sabrina hoping you don't notice she's just sitting in a chair:



Sabrina mysteriously learnt how to dance 2 minutes into this video:



Sometimes it loops back around to being ironic self ownership of the awkward dancing:





It's OK spiderman's gonna put the cocaine back in coca cola:

Why does this video continue to give me so much serotonin years later?
I go to watch it once in a while, but like a rat on cocaine i hit it anywhere from 3-14 times once i start 🤣

Well that's enough references to cocaine for the next 24 hours probably.

Yes by white in this context, everyone means Northern and Eastern European. Not Southern European.


Edit: Comment from the first video in this post:

Yes we danced like we were bored...

Yes. Exactly.



And yeah I'm kinda shitposting but it's kinda true lol.

[Nyctophilia]

Wtf are they psychic? Did YOU WRITE KANYE? Oh my God I found the creators guys:



I remember them from Sex with Ducks (and some of their other songs) but never saw this video.



(Yes I know other people have done similar jokes before because it can be hard to tell people apart.)

[interview with Kanye on a podcast.]

Lex provides Kanye the space to communicate his views, but also pushes back and keeps him accountable for his words. Lex is on his way to becoming an all-time great interviewer

These podcasts mysteriously never give a platform to the guy yelling about Talos on a street corner near you:





Why do they do this with people who have sold a bunch of records or something like that? Why do people act like because someone is a billionaire or something that everything they say on every topic is equally important?



"it doesn't matter what you say, it only matters that you say. We don't discriminate here between what is true or false, or even downright dangerous."

It's actually worse than that though. It only matters who you are. This isn't Louis Theroux after all.

[Nyctophilia]

The party that?s been mad at black men for being absent fathers for decades btw

I know and I'm never going to let them live this down.

He is one of the biggest fuckboys of my life time. I don't care if he's a billionaire. And he uses his kid X as a Human shield/prop.

Their absolute hypocrisy about things like this piss me off.

Where is your evidence that he's an absent father?

Besides his trans daughter who won't stop live tweeting (posting whatever, she's on some other social media site,) about how much she hates him? (And she was one of the earlier children just imagine how bad it's going to get with the younger ones.) How could he possibly be juggling all these different households all over the place on top of tweeting all day and his hypothetical career(s) (mostly delegating I assume, but he's given credit for it so let's play along.)

Using the same "Phineas and Ferb" quote, Wilson changed the ending saying "I'd have a few nickels- which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened SIX SEPARATE TIMES."

Remember the time this happened?









She deletes a lot of her tweets lol. I think at least some of this is still up though. Not all of it either. We're not paying attention to the same info here clearly.

He's surrounded by overly agreeable pod people who occasionally freak out because of his [BEEP] behaviour, but then as though in some kind of mind control movie/story/book/whatever calm back down again and just ignore all his issues.

Except for his trans daughter who doesn't give a shit.

I don't know his fans are delusional lol.

Your just mad that we can get beautiful women and you cannot

I'm very annoyed that Elon used a time machine to go back in time to have sex with a librarian who looks like Geddy Lee.





Oh wait that hasn't happened yet. Let me know when he does (or the next guy I'm using as a basis for a fictional + parasocial character.) It's impossible to find him annyoing for any other reason.

I can't believe Elon had sex with the trans woman from twitter with the long hair and glasses I found the other day who I thought was kind of cute.

He's just easy to hate because he's being shoved in your face constantly as this symbol of bad boyfriend/dad(s) who can just get away with [BEEP] over and over again. In reality there are obviously millions of men like this.

You know before posting this I didn't watch the video and now I'm a few minutes in and like....... Are these bots that are defending him.

This is a giant trainwreck just look what the current babymama is tweeting at Elon.

"Right now the mother of Elon's latest child is publically duking it out with him on twitter wtf is happening."

I mean he knows/met Grimes so I'm sure he knows this isn't the first time this has happened on twitter publically:



Also the best part of this is "Why are you so buff? Is it necessary?"



If you wanted to be conspiratorial about it you could even say he's paying them to act this out/it's all staged. As he owns the platform.

Maybe they're not even his kids lol.

I can't tell if that's realistic or just cope because I don't get how people are still doing this haha.

Edit: Also from that video:

Grimes: "I don't think it?s totally out of the question that the US invades Canada at some point in the future"

I forgot she said that lol. It's not that prophetic though really since people have referred to this happening often for many years.

He does address this/his thoughts on that later in his video lol. I didn't watch the whole thing before when making this post. Regarding what his comparison with this woman being one of his replyguys and Grimes being a famous musician well... (That's probably not relevant to him actually.) But I feel like Elon responds to her more than other women and also passive aggressively unfollows her quite often (so she clearly bugs him or it's part of his performance since everything he does might be staged,) but also I don't follow regularly the other women to compare because they don't tweet stuff like this (and they are mostly his employees. It's not generally as interesting to me personally):









It's not even just her it's the responses. I follow Aella on/off for similar reasons (but also because I'm very interested in sexology.)

I can't imagine the others are that interesting. I go into that later in my post though the mother of his recent child I think is a woman who eventually came to work for him, or maybe always did? I don't know and she simps for him a lot. She doesn't post amusing things.

I need everyone to get more self respect too. I'm linking the song again:



None of you n---as is wife material
None of you n---as was worth all the drama
None of you n---as was hitting it raw and mad
I'm not one of yo baby mamas

Such a versatile verse.


Edit: Oh yeah she's just a huge fangirl this time lol. Would have to be at this stage I guess. He can't date movie stars anymore.

She's tweeted about him a lot tbh. She's spent a lot of time defending him for years.

Also apparently Milo's involved himself hahaha. I just realised that's who Elon was responding to. It would have been better if he stayed dead but whatever.



Do you think this is really news to him? I'm starting to think he's just as stupid.



This amused me too honestly:



I think she doesn't like people knowing she's a groupie.

The responses...

On EVERYBODY?S souls this is the type of love we ALL want. 🙏

God if you?re listening please bless us ALL with this type of love AMEN! 😇🙌

im convinced this is rage bait

pray for yourself bud, don?t include us on your bs 🦭

Probably. If not sarcasm.

I see far too many self-righteous and tired individuals pouncing on
@stclairashley
for having a child out of wedlock instead of COMMENDING her for choosing life.

Is the conservative position not that every life is a blessing regardless of how it?s conceived?

Lol no it never was. At least when non-white people were concerned... They've been shitting on single mum's in general forever so... Is his money supposed to change things? (Apparently yes.)

I'd prefer to attack Elon but she also seems like a shitty person based on her tweets.

I hope they all destroy each other.

Milo retweeted Pearl Davis saying this with 'she has her moments':

Getting creampied by a billionaire is not honorable

I was curious because people are claiming his account was suspended or something but it's still there but maybe he's just blocked from tweeting I dunno. It's probably just bs though.

Getting pregnant from one of the most Intelligent man on earth is many women's dream..
These genes need to be saved..
And on the women's side:
They are perfect in their way and also high inteligente
Respect

I can't believe this guy found a way to tweet something worse than Pearl. And I'm going to throw up.

I'm 100% sure this is all a psyop to promote himbos.

Pro jock propaganda. 😂

Then Grimes was tweeting about Disney princesses:

Why did everyone get so down on Disney princesses to the point that now Disney won't make romances anymore. The classic Disney princesses repeatedly risk everything for true love, but also always adventure.

In beauty and the beast they constantly emphasize that belle is an avid reader and the town eccentric. She literally ends up in an abusive relationship to heroically save her father, but refuses to believe any soul is lost and basically uses the power of love to help the beast recover from ptsd and self hatred and loves him despite him being a furry

It's

She's the hero of the story too like - and they're all kinda like this

This isn't a political statement. Everyone seems to be taking it as such, someone just called me a Disney princess the other day and I couldn't tell if it was an insult or a compliment cuz I took it as a compliment but later realized it was perhaps not. So just clarifying i think hopeless romantics that go on adventures are good and I'd like more of them

It was 100% an insult.

Also as others pointed out they changed the story with a lot of these. Often the actual fairytail story was more that pursuing romance was doomed. Sometimes because the author was [BEEP] (like in The Little Mermaid.)

Aladin was socially maladjusted. The Beast too. The last positive male figure and socially adjusted might have been the Prince in Snow White (original).

IMO Disney always portrayed contemporary women's narratives, informed by them, not driving them.

Reinforcing indoctrination

I don't like any of them and never found them attractive. I think Studio Ghibli is a bit better for both male and female characters. At the very least - even with flawed chracters - the androgyny of the art style is more attractive imo.

But this idea being pushed that women are supposed to just 'put up with various things' without 'emasculating' or ignoring men like in this video is dumb imo:



"Maleficent did nothing wrong actually." No but lol.

Grimes I don't know if you've been asleep but romance is very dead. Now there are just transactional situationships and friendships sometimes if you're lucky.

And fanfiction and romance novels which is where you're going to have to go for wish fulfilment.

I mean she wrote this lol:





^ I felt this fit in somewhere lol.

My only request is that you don't turn your kids against their father. Be a classy mother. I remember the scene from the movie The Vikings where King Ragnar thanks Queen Aslaug Sigurdsdottir for not turning their kids against him after he had an affair with another woman.

I think Elon should beg her instead. I don't think she'll need to though. I think the best he can hope for is a complicated relationship. He once described his own father as evil and seems to have flipflopped a lot.

Errol Musk says Tesla billionaire is a bad dad: 'If Elon hears this, he's going to shoot me'

Well you did teach him to be a bad dad. Also this might be projection a bit - you're the one that shoots people lol.

I've never seen a feminist bring up the fact that there's never been a disney or animated story about the princess saving the prince. Odd how they screech at gender roles unless it benefits them.

I'm not a feminist but yeah there has been like Mulan (not a princess but Disney calls all it's animated characters princesses for some reason,) although it would be cool if it was a bigger part/there were more. I came up with a story like that in my head though and started making a YouTube thing based on some of my ideas from a couple of different stories with this fairy boy (later adult) using a video game but the first part took so long to make for what it was, and I wasn't satisfied with the end result, that I didn't make a second part. It wasn't popular anyway along with most of my older content.

I guess they just prefer stories about a playboy being punished by several women and an inventor with a time machine (I'm trying to be a bit vague here,) and other horror/creepy stuff haha that's more incidental though I think because those games were more popular with my audience and also because people like weird stuff.

I mean that makes sense actually cause a recent best selling book of all time (not #1 but on the list,) was like that too lol. I mean it wasn't just revenge for being a fuckboy but....

If you look outside the West there's more animated rolereversal stuff though.

My favourite thing about Mulan though is the concept of like "it's dangerous for women to be in the army so if you're caught we're going to kill you." Of course that's because they care about gender roles more than women's safety. Always remember that.

Also I'm fundamentally against the concept of armies but I liked it as a kid.