S. Misanthrope

Google it, you will find lots of information like this: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds This is tangential to my question, so I'm not going to go into this further.

With young women out-earning young men these days, I imagine we're going to see more stay-at-home dads going forward. How does that work when the kids are still breast feeding, ages 0 to 2 let's say? If Mom can work from home and fit breast feeding into her schedule, does that mean Dad handles everything else? Does that actually work for people? What are the costs associated with mothers returning to work very quickly and substituting an early Daddy-bond for a Mommy-bond? With young women out-earning men, I imagine we're going to see more of this approach

Hi! On the Meetup app, we have a group called Freedomain Radio Bay Area, which I co-run with a fellow named Carter. Our next meetup is actually tomorrow! Bowling at Plank in Jack London Square, 6pm. Hope to see some of you there. You should also consider joining the Meetup group Conservative Gays, which is actually run by a couple of Ancap FDR fans (who don't mind at all if straight people join the group). I've found Meetup to be an obnoxious (and SJW-converged) app, so if you can't figure out how to find and join these groups, just show up at Jack London tomorrow and find me there. I should be easy to recognize (this is me: ).

Nor is it necessarily irrelevant. Get it together, dude. Stefan reported the fact of the woman's public statement. Step 1 is get the facts. Step 2 is evaluate them. If the evaluation ends up being "Irrelevant, because she was emotional at the time," fine, but why fear the facts?

He definite did but I can't find it either. I wrote such a beautiful rant and then accidentally navigated away and lost it. FML. Another time, I guess.

I saw this article last week. I didn't know what to say then, and I don't know what to say now. Is it just post-wall low SMV women taking advantage of the situation? Or is it younger bleeding hearts becoming enamored with the danger? If this is truly a common behavior at these camps, is it any wonder these migrant sexual assaults are happening? Ick, ick, ick.

Hi Peaceful Parents! Stefan often refers to some survey where parents identify the year that they have a kid as the worst year of their marriage. I'm considering starting a family and want to know: was this your experience? Is this experience more-or-less inevitable due to sleep deprivation and the stress of a major life change, or can reason and virtue overcome even this extraordinary challenge? Thanks in advance!

I agree that the important thing is to figure out how to get a finger on the pulse of the "real people" of America. How does one do this? There's an entire industry for polling that is supposed to do this job. I don't know if I, as a layperson, can reasonably expect to take that on in my spare time. Anyone know of any relatively easy ways to get a general sense (even just a directional sense) of these sorts of things? Personally I have a hard time seeing how a typical person could be swayed by Khan's actual speech. He didn't carry himself well or speak well, and what he said made no sense. He said Trump's name more times than Clinton's in a speech endorsing Clinton. The silent wife came off as creepy. The whole thing just seemed to scream "These people are not Americans." Assuming the average American still thinks Americans should decide America's destiny, I think the speech was an enormous flop. Insofar as the controversy will lead to more people directly comparing Khan to Trump, there's no question Trump comes out ahead in that conflict.

Hi all! My friend Carter and myself are organizers of the Freedomain Radio Bay Area group on MeetUp. Sign up here: http://www.meetup.com/Freedomain-Radio-Bay-Area/ Our first event is hiking this Sunday, 8/7/2016, in Orinda at 11am. You can find all the details on MeetUp. Feel free to reach out to me if you need help arranging a ride or have any questions. Looking forward to seeing what neurons are still firing in the Bay Area!

Hi! We have a group on MeetUp for the Bay Area. See the link below. My friend Carter recently took over leadership of the group. Our first event is hiking in Orinda this Sunday 8/7/2016 at 11am. Hope you can make it! I'm happy to arrange rides for people. Just reach out to me. http://www.meetup.com/Freedomain-Radio-Bay-Area/

OP, have you read Real-Time Relationships yet? I think it answers your core question of why virtue gets turned on its head in our personal interactions.

I tried to post a couple of times with more details of what's going on, but it's not going through. Sorry! I promise I'm not ignoring you all.

I loved him growing up. Just the other day, I was wondering what happened to him. Glad to see he's still hitting those issues as hard as ever! Showdown is another book of his that I enjoyed besides 10 Things.

Hm, I responded last night but don't see the posts today. Well, thanks so much for the responses! This is the show I was on:

I called in last week for the first time and asked a question that I knew would be offensive to many in my social media network. I was unsure whether I wanted to post the call to Facebook, as I figured it would just confirm what I already knew about certain people. Before I could decide either way, a real-life friend to whom I'd sent the show posted it to his own Facebook, because he enjoyed it and thought others might find it intriguing. Of course it immediately blew up and, given our mutual friends and the nature of the community we're both involved in, it's basically "out" now no different than if I had posted it myself. So I've been dealing with the barrage of questions and replies and attacks since then, and I'm mostly feeling like "Why am I wasting my time on these people?" So I wanted to ask the folks here if anyone had a similar experience with backlash from their call, or even just from posting a Stefan video. How did you react and what came of it? What did you gain from the experience, and what did it cost you? Thanks in advance!

Brits in general seem to have this attitude, I've found. They're often baffled at the litigiousness of Americans.

I see it like this: Trump pays for venue for rally Venue temporarily becomes his property Trump invites supporters onto his property for purpose of rally Non-supporters come in for purpose of disrupting rally <--this is initiation of force Trump and supporters forcibly eject non-supporters <--this is retaliatory force

The guy who was elbowed should have been arrested. I didn't say he should serve jail time, or that his crime was equal to the guy who threw the elbow's. I only said that he should have been arrested and charges considered/investigated. I haven't had any luck finding a video of what got him ejected, but the video of the punch indicates to me that there's a reason he was being escorted out by security. If you attend a person's event and they ask you to leave, doing anything other than leaving peacefully likely violates some law. I'm inferring from the fact that security was escorting him that he did something in the "other" category.

To me, the point is not that the elbow guy should not go to jail. It's that the other guy should also go to jail. Both should go to jail. But only one actually did, which shows unfairness in favor of the Trump protesters.

Isn't that a reasonable thing to lament? The guy receiving the elbow was previously disruptive (aka violent and/or threatening) to the point that he was forcibly removed from the premises. Both were violent, but only one was taken to jail. How is that fair?

Retaliatory violence/self-defense, no? I'm still in the process of watching all of these with more context than Maddow shows, so I could be wrong about that.

It's the end that really kills me: "American presidential politics did not get this way on its own. This is the work of an American presidential candidate who deliberately made this happen." ~Maddow So it's the guy who's been on the political scene for a few months (years, if you want to count his prior bid where he was in the periphery) who is responsible for the state of political discourse, not Maddow and her colleagues in the media, who've been race-baiting for the past 30+ years. Right, that makes sense. Insanity. Gotcha. I felt it was worth my time to view this, because it's worth my time to understand a particular phenomenon I'm witnessing. I'm part of the Objectivist community, which is one of the few places where people generally recognize that the media is hugely dishonest with a leftist bias, that anti-white institutionalized racism exists and is immoral, that self-interest deserves praise instead of scorn, etc. Yet they nearly universally hate Trump. Many of them specifically praised this Maddow segment to me recently, and...well, I'm just baffled. So that's what I'm hoping to unravel, and I don't think it can be done very easily without linking the segment. At least when I played it, there were no ads, so I don't think I'm putting dollars in Maddow's pockets, at least not very directly. If there's a better way to avoid that, I'd love to hear it! I haven't linked the segment anywhere else, because I don't want her influence to spread. I doubt anyone on this forum will be taken in by her rhetoric, so I felt it was fine to post it here. I posted the following to FB, obliquely referring to the segment without naming it at all: "The media are not your friends. They are not honest. They do not suddenly become honest when they happen to dislike someone you also dislike, or when they happen to support someone you also support. Stop. Feeding. Them. No more dollars, no more clicks, no more unearned authority or fame. It's the Internet age. Primary sources are accessible as never before. Yeah, it's a lot of work. Do the work. Or don't do the work and get out of the way of those who do."

Am I perpetuating it? How so?

I can't believe I'm seeing this Maddow segment praised on the left, right, and libertarian sides. She's not even able to keep the smirk off her face as she carefully presents feelings first, conclusions second, and a smattering of facts and evidence last.

More and more I'm seeing how true it is that the r's are everywhere. In libertarianism, in Objectivism. It's one thing to intellectually praise success and business and individualism from afar. It's quite another to face a specific successful businessman in your immediate reality. The feelings you have then reveal the truth of your convictions. My working theory is that Trump triggers people because he's a concrete reminder of reality not being fair. He was born into a good family. He was born into a wealthy family. He was born with good genes supporting intelligence, health, vigor, and hair. The part where he took all of those advantages and did something with them rather than wasting them gets overwhelmed by the envy many people feel when looking at a "natural alpha male." A few friends have admitted to me in private that Trump "feels like" the guy who bested them in high school, socially or in debate club. They remember the feeling of having better arguments than the alpha guy, but they didn't matter because he was a better communicator for the audience of their peers. Only one so far has been able to process and then set aside this emotional response in order to apply reason. r/k theory in action!