Hank Galaxy Brain

@Danioover9000 It's an involuntary celibate. They're usually described online as sexually frustrated, resentful, basement dwelling types who feel entitled to women and misogynistic. That's the connotation at least. I'm sure some are just sexually frustrated without projecting their anger onto women or the world. There's a Reddit forum by the name. Now that I think of it it sounds prison related. The very word has a feel most similar to the feel of the word... "ex-con." Almost like punitive, dangerous, awol sort of feel. It's funny how words can seem to encapsulate what they describe. @Onemanwolfpac Yea marriage doesn't seem like a great deal for most. But at the same time I'm ever surprised to find people who grew up super religious/conservative and still have high expectations for monogamy, waiting till marriage, and overall not using sex and people as objects to see who can get the most pleasure. But rather as more of a sacred bonding experience between to people that trust and love each other deeply. Some in the spiritual community as well. I think for the most part you're right, but don't leave out the possibility of finding someone worth it if that's what you want one day. You just have to look in the right places.

This is, I think, the biggest elephant in the room of our time. Jordan Peterson says it so casually at 1:32:18. "Polygamous societies tend to become ultra violent." I had no idea this was common anthropological knowledge, but I looked into it and it is. Here's an Atlantic article about it. It cites the book, The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright, one I'm adding to my reading list. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/one-man-many-wives-big-problems/304829/ Basically, in societies with high wealth inequality, a small number of elite males take a disproportionate share of wives. This leaves many males sexually frustrated with nothing to do, and often full of rage and envy. Which leads to either insurrection, or being harnessed by the elites--either as foot-soldiers in whatever cause they can be duped into, or sent away as conquistadors to conquer for themselves. Monogamy on the other hand, has tended to lead to much more egalitarian societies and may very well be the main reason democratic values were able to come to prominence in western society. What we're seeing in modern dating: Marriage is on the decline, divorce rates are up. Resources are spread highly unequally among men, with most wealth concentrated in older generations and a small percentage of younger men with great wealth. Marriage is delayed until around 29 for men and 26 for women, leading to a polygamous dating world in your 20's (or if you're a male who likes to date women in their 20's, or a sugar daddy--age difference between mates increases with wealth inequality and polygamy as well). Monogamy and sexual purity are no longer valued or culturally enforced Hookup culture rises, favoring I believe the Tinder stats have shown, a small minority of men getting a disproportionate percentage of the women's interest. Looser values, along with pressing economic times, leads to an increase in the sale of sex: the rise of fansonly, porn, seekingarrangement, women asking for sugar daddies or posting venmo's on Tinder. Seeking out sex for money is becoming increasingly common place among everyday people, as well as, I imagine, prostitution. Of course the men that reap the benefits will be those with surplus cash. And men looking for monogamous partners will be more and more disappointed by the dating pool. "Would you date a girl with an onlyfans?" Is a question I now hear asked in my friend group (no, I wouldn't). Many women who do not grow up with (socially) enforced monogamy, usually in strict communal religious environments, get used to being with the elite of the dating pool casually. And by the time they are ready to marry, may end up doing what they consider "settling." This is not ideal for either party. Even when people do marry, women are still hypergamous and tend to (JP mentions this in the video) cheat with higher status men. (Men, especially the elites of the dating pool are I'm sure liable to cheat as well). All of this seems to (1) result from the erosion of traditional family values (good or bad), and (2) cause much fiercer competition to be in the elite of men (PUA culture, TRP, increasing work hours for little pay gain, ruthless corporate culture), with the most cunning and ruthless rising to the top (sociopathy is incentivized, Epstein's and Trump's at the top of society, womanizing rappers are glorified, even seen as role models). As well as (3) an ever-growing ball of unaddressed, unnamed, and unacknowledged rage in the incel types waiting to explode into whichever political avenue is lucky enough to exploit it. Or whichever school or movie theater is unlucky enough to find itself in the path of its rage. Basically, a few men attracting lots of women destabilizes society. So, these are my questions: Why aren't the (extremely vital) sociological implications of the sexual marketplace discussed at all in the political arena? Is there anything we can do about this? What can we practically do about: the dissolution of traditional marriage rising wealth inequality the ever growing mass of incel types What do you predict will happen?

@JosephKnecht hmm not if you're LGBTQ it's not. That's been hotly debated a while now. As well as abstinence only sex ed, contraception, abortion, and state funding for those. Most of the time I'm progressive with these. But here, the social conservatives actually have an immensely important point, that no one ever talks about: polygamy destabilizes society, while monogamy promotes egalitarianism. I think it's such a big deal it warrants societal discussion. It seems that most people are extremely removed from a vital anthropological truth, and a huge aspect of our history. Probably from old cultural taboos on teaching the history of sexuality in high schools and it just hasn't hit the media's radar. Either that or it benefits them not to talk about it. I mean seriously, how has a Bill O'Reilly or Hannity type ever come across the fact that across all of history monogamy is better? Anyways, just my guess.

AHahahahahahaahahahaha never stop bringing this up. This makes me laugh to no ends. Not even sure exactly why it's just absolutely fucking hilarious. Jordan Peterson's hot daughter + Andrew "Cobra" Tate who teaches young me to get PhD's: Pimpin Hoes Degrees hahahaa it's like an SNL skit or something. This. @Roy Yes absolutely. I think I was misunderstood. What I mean is the vast majority of men are begging for breadcrumbs, while a couple at the top are doing okay. The medium is for hookups which obviously men are far more incentivized towards than women. As to it being lopsided: any stats on men cheating more often? I'm intrigued. I sort of caught my bias at the end, when I added that men cheat too as an afterthought. I assume that every time heterosexual people cheat, there is a man and a woman involved. So the stats should come out about equal. If they're not, then either 1) men would be cheating on their wives other men or 2) men cheat with an abundance of women who are single and open to committed men. Very interesting stuff. Agreed. A vital point that no one seems to have much of an answer for.

I would point to mainly 1 unresolved trauma and 2 propaganda There's a lot of unresolved trauma from around 90% of between 2 and 18 million Native Americans dying, many from genocide. From the conquest of those people. And from slavery. Add to that the psychological effect of this: everyone (non-native) who came to America experienced the emotional pain of leaving all their extended family and community to come here. It's also a nation founded by venture capitalists, religious purists, and criminals. (Yes criminals, Transported convicts represented perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century.) I think that mixture of those three groups pretty accurately sums up a lot of what you see today. Just as those psychological patterns of trauma are passed down through families until they are resoled. Propaganda: The American population is gaslit into believing it is much less developed and progressive than it actually is. Biggest example: health care. It's not a controversial issue. 70% of Americans support medicare for all. This has been polled routinely for years now. But the media frames it as a "debate" and convinces the public that it's "too radical" for most Americans. So Biden, who does not support medicare for all, wins. Biden is winning even though most democrats support Medicare for all. 90 percent approval among Democratic voters for Medicare for All Not only that, but it's more full of ads and editorializing than European media, and uniform in supporting corporate narratives (which, for example, medicare for all doesn't fit). Noam Chomsky claims, "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." This is considered normal, while things the majority of the population support are considered radical.

I believe red pill refers to him as jordan petercuck. Nuance, they're very different. Peterson supports becoming high status and pursuing monogamy, while red pill is jaded and believes it hopeless--with lots of misogyny. In the video, he's stating, again, anthropologist consensus. Nothing "made up," by redpillers.

It's not "pretending" to cover the "whole conversation" if you can "clearly see it in the guidelines." I took one look at the guidelines and thought, oh damn they really are trying to trigger all the toxic right wing types straight up. Of course it's not the whole conversation. It excludes racism, nationalism, fascism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and islamophobia. And it considers Fox News and PragerU propaganda. I'm here because I think it's better for that. There are plenty of other places where these things are allowed, which no one is stopping you from visiting. The explanation for "leaving" is that the guidelines are biased against your views. Great, that explains the title. The following defensive rant about vague right wing stuff is not necessary, and it's not making any sort of overall concrete argument which can be refuted. It sounds like you believe your right wing views are not being taken seriously. If so, you could provide examples and we could discuss them. Otherwise, there's really not much to discuss here. That is your constitutional right. You haven't left. You've made an attention grabbing title and are eagerly awaiting our responses. If you would like to leave the forum, because you don't like the guidelines that you were required to read before ever posting, please go ahead. Otherwise, let me direct your and the mods' attention to another section of the guidelines: I'm not sure that this qualifies, but I'm also not sure that it doesn't. Let's just keep this in mind. @Robi Steel @Serotoninluv

Who is "they" that feels alone and making this up? Jordan Peterson or the anthropological consensus? This isn't red pill, I'm not a big fan of that place. Just looking at the anthropological patterns. It's also important to point out that we're not a polygamous society. Just making small creeps in that direction as marriage has declined and delayed in life, sex becomes more promiscuous, etc. And this, according to the anthropological consensus, may increase the potential for violence in society. Yes it has. The majority of societies have been far more violent than ours--and far more polygamous. It's a bit of a miracle that monogamy has be come such a cultural norm to allow for the democratic values seen in the west.

As someone who usually leans left on these issues, I really agree here. Policing is really dangerous work. Not all cops are bad people. The problem is that slavery and its repercussions backed the black community into a corner with nowhere to go, in many cases, other than crime, violence, and drugs. And then punished them for being backed into that corner. From the outside, I can see that the police don't understand this going into it--neither do most Americans have a full grasp on the suppressed history of civil rights and slavery. All the black community knows is that it's backed into a corner; it doesn't know why, and it's had enough. (My projections of course, I'm not black and cannot speak for black people, although have been reading and drawing conclusions from a civil rights autobiography). So if you're backed into a corner, and someone won't stop hitting you, well basically all you can do is defend yourself. And if that doesn't work (defending yourself against police is a big no no) then eventually you get hit hard enough you break and go on the offensive. And you make such a scene that someone will have to do something. This is warranted when you don't have equal access to official avenues of change. Do something! They scream. What? We say. Make them stop hitting me, I don't know what I'm doing wrong. It's a very practical first step. And we should absolutely do it. But it will lead to more issues. Police can't risk on the one hand dying in the line of duty and on the other losing their job (or even the death penalty) at the slightest misstep under the highest stakes. What happens when you try to wedge them onto that tightrope? Well I've actually worked in a similar situation, as a mental health tech in a prison mandated rehab program for juvenile offenders. We often faced threats, intimidation, threats by sexual predators to rape your whole family, and even in some cases violence and injuries. I was also taught in (extremely inadequate training), that if a kid was biting my arm and wouldn't let go, I had to be collected enough to act in the exact way, pulling his head at the correct angle, lest I be charged with child abuse while defending myself. Likewise, restraints had to be carried out in professional wrestling form against potentially wildly violent assailants (we got 5 hours training total, maybe 1 of those was actually practicing restraints), lest we, again, be charged with child abuse. Any lapse in 24/7 supervision, even for 5-10 seconds, was a potential child neglect charge. We would self report pre-emptively. All of this and we were perennially understaffed, and underpaid, and working bizarre hours, and being called in for overtime, and enforcing an unjust criminal justice system on those we were trying to rehabilitate, and.... the list goes on and on. The result? The rules were nigh unenforceable and inhumane when they were. The kids hated us. NO mental health work was done when we were mostly just battling to maintain a very shaky order with our jobs (and statuses as non-child-abusers) constantly at risk. Not to mention our own mental health. The average person lasted 6 months. Turnaround was 90% in a year. You can't just put people right between the unstoppable force and the immovable object for $15 an hour and expect them to figure it out. Oh and crazy shit happened too, when staff got tired of it or couldn't handle the rules. Solutions: We have to get to the root of the problem: reparations for slavery. This would be (as proposed in H.R. 40 I believe) in the form of a New Deal for black communities resulting in an investment in those communities, and in property, equity and education for black people. As long as the races are unequal, we will have racism. Period. We've got to take a crack at the underlying inequality and own up to the trauma we've caused. In the mean time, I would advise doing something to break the line of white supremacy tracing back to slave catching that is modern policing. And starting with something new. We WILL need police. With guns. With combat training. Period. But it would help to totally get rid of leadership and start with a new breed. We should send a social worker on every police call as well, to work together. Sort of like a mom dad approach. The social worker tries to de escalate and advocate for the citizen, even auditing the police, and the police is there to protect the social worker and community from bad actors. I learned from that job: a social worker can't do their job without assurance basic physical safety. And offering the care of a social worker and the protection of a prison guard is a two person job, not one. So, how are we going to do this? Not at all without a sustained movement with lots of organization and discipline to see it through. Which hasn't been seen on the left in ~70 years. Shit looks rough. But again, these protests are doing the first step in doing that. And if we head towards a depression with this virus we may very well see one re-emerge. Anyways, sorry for the wall of text, I've just had this all bouncing around in my head lately and it's good to get it out.

I'm not an economist, but it seems accurate to me. These are unprecedented times. The national debt shot up $3 trillion in the past 6 months. That's a huge increase. We have only $26 trillion over the life of the country; it took us around 2 years to get the preceding $3 trillion. The fed has just been printing money like crazy; it really seems like they're shitting their pants. And with good reason. The Dow dropped from around 29k to around 18k from February to March. A 33% decrease. It suddenly rebounded due to the fed's 1 trillion in one-day loans made available every day to big banks. But I think that's a bubble, a band-aid solution at best. And we've seen what happens when a country just start printing money like crazy to deal with its problems. Weimar Germany is an example. My gut tells me we're headed for a depression. And with a leader with strong authoritarian tendencies running for reelection in the middle of a pandemic. No one knows what voting is going to look like; he's already de-legitimizing the election and promoting massive voter suppression (campaigning against mail-in ballots which will likely be the only safe way to vote and saying there's no way there won't be massive voter fraud (a claim that's been proven false)). The other side is assembling an army of lawyers to ensure fair elections. We can look in other countries and see that contested elections often lead to armed conflicts and to authoritarian groups seizing control. Most recently in Bolivia. All signs point to at least a depression, a near certain contested election, quite probable massive civil unrest, protesting, chaos, etc., and a very real chance of a president deploying the military on his citizens (he's already tried to). Maybe things will get better over the long term, but short term I'm preparing for the worst.