Lars

Hello. I'm sure most of us can relate if you were initially daunted about posting here.

I subscribed too. You brought up many excellent points in the Sandman response. From what I have observed, there are some parallels between the MGTOW and Feminist communities. It's common for both to employ statistical self-victimization to justify their positions (difference - one side's statistics are actually true while the other's are fictitious). They also tend to ridicule the biological needs of the opposite gender while promoting their own above all else. I identify with Paul Elam and company as well as the Honey Badger Brigade when it comes to gender issues.

After listening to music set fairly high (~70%) for an extended period there is definitely a deafening sensation, but having it set to 50% or below for hours produces no similar feeling. Is the damage still occurring? I don't know. You'd think our ears evolved to withstand some degree of constant sound bombardment. Sense degradation is inevitable nonetheless, though not impossible to repair.

You'd think he would research and/or test the plausibility of his ideas before thrusting them forth like some flawless answer to everything. I swear, that fucking ego... There's nothing original or cutting-edge about welfare. As Stefan has mentioned, more processing power does not enable computers to determine the best course of action which satisfies billions of conflicting interests. We cannot rely on fast computers to somehow predict the future. Machines are only able to achieve what humans are capable of programming them to achieve.

You didn't miss anything, "robots!" sums it up. He believes that all human survival needs can be fully addressed by a self-perpetuating omniscient robotic workforce. Then comes the universal freedom to attend extremely important Zeitgeist book club meetings where we pine over Peter Joseph for the rest of eternity. *brain short-circuits*

For a woman, being obese on any typical dating site is fatal toward your chances of receiving replies. It's the same for a man if he is short and poor. Regardless, the fat woman's chances are still way better than the short poor man.

Including "for the lulz" in the first post probably wasn't a good idea. You could have started with asking everyone what they thought about the video rather than trying to immediately frame it as funny, or attempting to preemptively manage our response with "don't get all worked up". Even if you didn't mean to troll, that's how it comes off.

Am I the only one who's perplexed?

I recall something said in a discussion with Dr. Warren Farrell regarding this topic - one particular study compared the income of male and female business owners, there is still a "pay gap" even though the apparent anti-women prejudice couldn't have possibly played a role. It was suggested that motivation could be a contributing factor. Men are mostly driven by a need to raise their own value/status as a provider whereas women are likely driven by the desire to ensure flexible, fulfilling, comfortable lives. As Stefan says, raising children and the business world do not mix. Our time is limited, one endeavor must be compromised in favor of the other. Women are more at liberty to pursue something which is personally gratifying over boring, high demand, stressful occupations. Either way, if it were true that women are automatically paid less than men (despite generating equivalent value) then where are all the businesses which only employ women for a necessary competitive advantage?

Is this real life?

I'm currently in the category of "can't pay", so I promote Stef's work if it's relevant.

Thanks, Pope! Where would science be without you?!

This is to be expected with Feminism raising the priority of women above all else.

Me plus piercings, tattoos, dyed hair and heavy make up.

A definition where the concept is not self-contradictory would be a good start.

It doesn't look like the article received much attention after 4 years, eh. Other than 6000 Facebook shares which were probably drowned out by a storm of Farmville notifications.

The myth of Santa Claus seems designed to teach children that an inexplicably reality-bending external entity will reward them if they comply with the arbitrary rules of their elders. Most adults have yet to give up on "Santa Claus"...

I guess it's just common for people to construe "rulers" as "structure". Define structure? Anyway, why is branding/semantics important in philosophy? If someone refuses to accept good arguments and fails to provide a valid rebuttal then it doesn't matter what we call ourselves.. unless we're looking to attract mouth-breathers who make decisions based on how nice a word sounds.

Sounds like your teacher is extremely anxious about not being in control, so it rubs off on you in the form of self doubt and a nerve-racking desire to control their hair-trigger feedback. Either they're being irresponsible for putting an inexperienced driver into situations well beyond their skill level or they're seriously overreacting in response to the inevitable errors of a learner, this increases the likelihood of an accident occurring. Does your teacher ever compliment you for good driving? Do they clearly identify your most common errors and proactively guide you toward fixing them? ..or just freak out when something bad happens and expect you to know better next time?

It seems like the standard "success later in life" for this apparent study was a measure of conformity rather than psychological well-being. They also completely failed to take into account other common forms of abuse such as neglect. Also, if the study relied on those teenagers telling the truth, then I doubt the ones who were most brutally hit would be terribly honest about their humiliating situation. Having said, it doesn't look like they distinguished the degree and frequency of physical abuse where different kids would have a different idea of what it entails based on their own isolated experiences.

It's a guilty pleasure.

Enthusiasm for changes in the immediate future is fully commendable if our limited time and energy is used wisely for the sake of achieving virtuous long-term goals. Cynicism tends to arise when we persistently fail to allocate our efforts wisely through a disregard of empirical evidence, although the stupidity generated by culture, tradition and propaganda can be overwhelming at times.

Adam appears to be falling back into typical anti-productive Libertarian rants (valid nonetheless) in place of his prior rebellion which only served to turn the general public against him for as briefly as their droning attention was held. I still enjoy his work for the most part, he could focus more on raising children properly, but that would require him to accept that he will not live to see day where freedom is truly realized. I don't think he's quite there yet.

Cowardice as a reluctance to act in support of your own values is pretty unhealthy (when it is otherwise safe or preferable to act). Ignore any narcissistic accusations of cowardice designed to provoke self-sacrifice.