Basman

He he he. To be fair, I do think it can work, but it would be exceedingly expensive for the state, and it doesn't do anything to change the factors that got us here in the first place, like the dissolvement of communal bonds, public depoliticization, the affordability crisis, etc. It's probably why no country wants to do it even though it would probably be popular with voters. It's like solving the problem of paddling up river by buying better paddles and paddling even harder. Politicians might propose it as a kind last resort before some kind of socio-political crash relative to population numbers.

@CredI agree that NTs can produce high quality work if given the right accommodations, which I presume is what you are pushing for in general sense. I'm not so confident in your political conclusions, or any of your conclusions that are of a radical kind, and I think your language risks alienating people.

Basically that what constitutes the "masculinity crisis" isn't unique to men but are rather just general trends in society, like the depreciating worth of higher education or lack of dating, and are present in both men and women. In some instances it's actually worse for women, like mental health (though that could be biased by women generally being more open about their feelings). On men attending college less specifically, men tend to be much more driven by money and have more options to get a higher paying job than women without a degree. Degrees that are likely to pay still see men attending to a high degree (no pun intended), and men still form the majority of entrepreneurs. A lot of the culture war discourse online is essentially algorithmic, IE. engagement/rage bait. It's a tragedy when people buy into these narratives uncritically because it implies a degree to which one signs off their own agency. It's a kind of memetic victim mentality. I will say though that there's too much "deconstructing of masculinity" going on of an unconstructive kind in my opinion, which basically amounts to shitting on guys for being guys. There needs to be more dialogue about the unresolved hatred for men within feminist circles since the suffragetes. It's iliberal in nature and needs to be constructively criticized as delusional and informed by trauma.

What do you propose as a final solution for the NTs then? It's not like it is ridiculous to hate an entire people and blame them for all your woes, let alone the majority of the human population.

Me too. My question to the haters is, are you mad that I went to Epstein Island, or are you mad that you didn't?

This comes of as a 20th century manifesto. Just replace "neurodivergent" with "aryan" and "neurotypical" with "jew" and it even sounds like one.

Matriarchies, as in women dominating a society in an exclusionary manner, has never existed. There have been matrilineal societies, which makes sense in nomadic tribes. Mothers always know who their children are, but it's less clear for fathers. There's in general more of a communal approach to raising children and there's no inheritance, so there's no incentive patrilineality to the same degree as post-agricultural revolution societies. It goes hand in hand with the theory that humans are adapted for gang bangs, with how much longer it takes for women to orgasm and how loud they can moan during sex (mating call) as well as how penises are plunger shaped (removing competing sperm). Gangbangs would introduce greater reproductive fitness into mating.

If your on Steam you only get 2 hours to change your mind, which isn't nearly enough for big AAA games in my opinion.

Ooh, I've been burned by doing that before. My standards are too high to pay full price for something I'm not sure about.

I've been to California many times.

AI hype is very convenient when it comes to hypewashing real economic downturns. AI investments itself are being used to hedge against a recession and is single-handedly propping up the US economy in pure investment dollars. It's probably why Trump wants to bail out AI companies when they do inevitably crash, to avoid associating his name with bad times.

Barefoot shoes are bad because hipsters wear them, and hipsters are bad. I feel sorry for anyone who feels that they need to leave little footprints that have little toes like they are actually barefeet. It's not funny and you look weird.

I think it has more do to strength specifically. I jerk off with my feet, so technique is in no short supply. Your feet and ankles have to work harder when there's no cushioning. It absolutely matters when 95% of your environment is hard surfaces.

Barefoot shoes are very pleasurable in nature with a bunch of soft grounds, but just feel harsh on roads and pavements. For general use for me, just the shoe being sufficiently lightweight makes them good enough if they are also aesthetic.

That is mostly haredi, AKA ultra orthodox jews, but it is much easier to have less children than more. It's a better problem to have than what S. Korea is dealing with because it is easier to solve. 1 in 4 is also a relative improvement because it used to be 1 in 3 just since covid. But that is besides the point, because your sidestepping the substance of my argument entirely to make a feminist culture war statement. I never said that the solution is more patriarchy.

The birthrate cannot be reversed because the general public are too depoliticized too give a shit and unwilling to change. They feel no sense of duty for their state and are not willing to make acts of love for others in a way that impedes with independence. People are too independent, too broken off from any sense of community. It's like the housing crisis. Everybody cries about unaffordable living but god forbid the value of your property depreciating. I wouldn't be surprised if politicians understand that policy that would effectively tackle the birthrate would be too unpopular and untenable with current culture.

Mathriarchy has never existed (as in women having a dominating role) because the military defines the borders of a civilization and women aren't suited to make up the bulk of an army (men are physically stronger and more expendable relative to the reproductive fitness of a group). Patriarchy originally rose up to protect women and society from other men in my opinion.

Looks like cinematic trash

You are still negotiating within a neoliberal framework, calling it a "job", etc. There's no consideration for culture or a sense of duty to one's state. Israelis are pumping out babies not just because they have generous benefits. My argument is that just throwing money at the problem is that it is both inefficient relative to the ballooning cost that it would entail and not radical enough a solution in of itself. Be careful with thinking that welfare alone is a sufficient solution to societal problems. The nordics spend the most money on education in the world yet their students achieve subpar results globally. Strategy must include consideration for culture.

A lot of countries offer generous benefits, especially western Europe. At best these policies stabilize the birthrate. The benefits are marginal relative to how expensive it is. Money alone doesn't resolve the underlying issue why people don't have kids. Money isn't the only resource. Money is at worst compensating for an environment that disinzentivises having children. Israel however has a booming birth rate because of their religiosity, nationalism and communal cohesion on top of generous benefits. Beautiful blue.

He had one. He employed millions. Nice lol As a truth seeker you should ask it how similar you are to Palpatine. I want numbers.

Another important point is that we are way too busy nowadays and spend too much time working. Our whole culture centers work as the reason why we are alive down to our language. We define the time we spend not working by its absence (IE. time off work, down time, etc.). Spending so much time working comes at the expense of communal bonds, relationships and learning about the world and ourselves. People are too busy trying to make ends meet to make sense of our politics for example, which has consequences for the kind of people we vote in. It makes the whole system opaque. I think it is not possible to reverse the declining birth rate without also changing our work culture.

The end game of throwing money at the problem is the mom hiring immigrants to look after her child for her at least 50% of the time. At least the kid will have some good old fashioned blue Asian values instilled into them. They'll grow up with big red ears.

It's a cute idea, but doesn't work. Welfare state give all sorts of benefits to women, including paying them, but they still have a birth rate below replacement. There's no substitute for communal bonds, that's the real issue in my opinion. The breakdown of communal bonds and subsequent atomization of society has made families too poor, both financially and socially, to effectively raise children. You can pay to substitute those communal bonds, what daycare essentially is, but it is incredibly inefficient. Even when run on bare minimum cost, a daycare is incredibly expensive. The government would have to pay billions just to hope to incentivize more people having children just to mimic a fraction of the power that is grandma helping out with looking after your kids for you. Daycare should really be seen as a luxury. We are so placid about our own survival as a culture that it doesn't occur to us that certain problems we can solve ourselves without big brother government telling us how to live.

Yup. "Race" doesn't exist. It is a social construct with a certain degree of reality to it relative to how much people buy into it, similar to how money works. The tendency of race to overlap with demographics and ethnocentrism makes it feel more real however. Americans are obsessed with race. It's shapes their entire thinking, how they relate to different people and talk about themselves with each other. For no other country is race a more hut button topic. Undermining race as a concept can feel like undermining slavery and marginalization, though both are true in my opinion. The concept of race has a definite traceable history, going back to the 16th century. America bought into race a lot early in its history, which makes it harder for them to transcend the concept since there is a lot of trauma linked to it.