I mean, there are other harward people making very similar consultations with Epstein. It seems to be more of "influencial harward people support each other" situation.
Plus, there are harward people who complained about these harward people for years and claim to not be surprised.
I remember brouhaha a whole bunch of pundits and thinkers defending him against evil feminists. On the grounds of intelectual curiosity and rational thinking.
Hey, turns out the dude trades "how to flirt with women in workplace whem they do presentation" advice with literal child abuse sex ring leader.
> I said in another reply that on Jan 6th of 2020, not electing Trump caused political escalation.
No. Trumps inability to accept looses caused him to escalate. Not obeying the violent bully is not the cause of bullies criminal actions, bully being criminal is the cause.
No, because once you to restore the distance, you have to go slower. The cars behind you then fill the restored space the moment they feel they can, because they perceive you as the slower car. If this happen with multiple cars and in practice it does, you are suddenly going very slow.
The fact is, you can have only so much space in front of you as other cars allow. I had to reduce the distance literally because of this. It then stopped happening.
Except that it is men who complain constantly about wanting to marry and have kids while women are much more content being single and have friends.
You dont have to pay alimony of the wife worked thw whole time. That complain is funny in the comtext of men demanding to return back to time where alimony arrangement was necessary protection.
Even in marriage, it is more of women who initiate divorce are report higher hapiness after the divorce. Men report lower hapiness and are more likely yo want to marry again.
> Its in the nature of men to work and provide. That's how men seek fulfilment in life.
i'm sorry, what? it's ingrained in men to be worker-drones and every man sees this as his fulfillment?
yikes. as the kids say, 'touch grass'. translated for older people, "maybe expand your world-view and don't extrapolate your idea of a man to all of men."
Men are workers. Not all work needs to be a "worker-drone", but yes, all men are built towards some form of work, and that work typically is around an item of sorts.
Men can work all sorts of ways, and that can include raising kids. Women tend to be a lot less happier leaving their kids to go toil with the dirt.
What are women, then? Baby-machines, cooks and cleaners, which I guess you don't see as work?
I mean it's not the first time I encounter a dude with the same opinion as you have, but every time I'm surprised by the casual reductionism of our societies. Men make work, Women make baby. Men hard, Women soft. Men strong and powerful. Women weak and emotional.
> Men make work, Women make baby. Men hard, Women soft. Men strong and powerful. Women weak and emotional.
On average those are true though, men work more, women take more care of children, men are harder than women, men are stronger than women, and women are more emotional than men. On average.
It is fine for women to be manly and men to be feminine, but that doesn't negate the fact that most women are feminine and most men are masculine.
Agree to Disagree, I've spent enough time of my life to discuss this exact topic. Men® are Men® and Women™ are Women™, so be it. On average everyone is exactly the same, as long as you look at the same gender. Wait, what's gend...forget it.
"All people are the same" argument basically negates thousands of years of history, basic human knowledge, etc. Biology impacts quite a bit. For example, if your family comes from Asia, chances are your more prone to lactose intolerance than European-based areas. It's also why most Asian dishes don't have any sort of cheese or dairy - there was no real history of that type of agriculture compared to Europe. To ignore all this and throw it out so that people can pretend to be the exact same is to throw all of history out the window, and to pretend that we're not standing on shoulders of giants that helped craft modern civilization as we know it.
Men are Men, and Women are Women. But Women wanted to be like Men, so they did, but Men don't like Women as Men, and Women are shocked to learn this.
> But Women wanted to be like Men, so they did, but Men don't like Women as Men, and Women are shocked to learn this [...] Now people don't even know what a Woman is.
even though i did write that i am done with discussing this topic with people, a sliver of hope was was in my mind. maybe if i continued engaging, you would make a clearer point. but you started by comparing racial, geographical quirks of different cultures to a 50/50 gender split over the whole world. more asian women and men are lactose intolerant, but surely 99% of their women are obedient housewives and 99% of the men are workhorse providers. globally, of course, in every culture. that's just the way things are, respect history, yo.
then you decided to go on a rant about women specifically wanting this and that. and then decided to top it all off with some nice transphobic(call it what you want) bs.
i don't have the energy to seriously reply to this, and even if, it probably wouldn't matter anyways. cheers, Man®
> Except that it is men who complain constantly about wanting to marry and have kids
Easy to want that when "have kids" just means "impregnating your wife". Bet most of them would balk at the prospective of a 2 decade long 24/7 childcare duty routine if they had to do it themselves. Plus, if they really wanted to raise kids, many in orphans would benefit from a parent
Ordinary men have wifes and two children in all those countries. You are also projecting American lifestyle "buying house without family help is necessary" on countries "hungary" where this was not an expectation for a really really long time. Like, generations.
I might be misunderstanding what booing means then. My understanding is covering another person's voice with shouts in order to sabotage his speech. It might indeed be part of what some society might define free speech, but I'd consider it more of a coward form of violence.
If with "booing" you mean "disrespect whatever good idea a person has because it also has very bad ideas", then I wonder who we will end up respecting. Even I have ideas I end up discovering bad. Should I boo myself and ignore everything else I say?
If I am missing another definition of booing then I am sorry.
That is exactly what booing is, but citizens are allowed to boo. I can boo you, you can boo me. If you are booing me then I can walk away, and likewise you can walk away from me. If I'm booing you during a public performance that is indeed rude but then I need to be thrown out by security, which is perfectly allowed and expected.
Citizens, i.e each other, are not the problem when it comes to free speech, ever. The only entity which needs to be defended against is the entity that has a monopoly on violence, which is of course the government.
I think there is something to be valued about historical accuracy.
> Like the statistics on plummeting mental health and happiness, an obesity epidemic, increases in "deaths of despair", and plateauing or decreasing life expectancy?
In the 60ties, suicide rates went UP. Peaked around 1970 and we did not reached their levels.
Long terms statistics about alcoholism rates and drug use are also a real exiting thing. We know that cirrhosis death rate was going up in the 60ties up to 70ties, peaked and went down. It was the time when drinking and driving campaigns started.
Current drug use is nowhere near what it was a generation ago.
It was not "social media" in an abstract politics neutral way. It was conservative right wing grifters who has seen it as a way to capitalize on notion of traditional masculinity.
It was not the "fair play in bar" kind of situation at all.
reply