Being "progressive" is linked to a denial of the existence of God. This is based on the materialistic worldview that everything in our universe is of a material nature, and thus measurable by modern materialistic science. God is not measurable in this way and thus forbidden by materialistic science. In the absence of God and His moral law, human values and ideas have no constraints leading to perverse value systems that define what you call being "progressive".
So yes, as long as sci-fi does not constrain itself to God's moral law, then it is inherently "progressive".
I don't understand the drive to anthropomorphise these text completion algorithms. They are not 'lying' because they don't have any free will of their. They can't 'lie'. They are simply producing patterns of text based on what they have been trained to say. Stop making these things seem more important that they actually are by treating as if they were conscious beings.
Says the genius who thinks a woman who let herself get inseminated by a faggot for money is 'based'.
Great comeback! 10/10!
Anyway, since you apparently know nothing about the abysmal statistics associated with children of single mothers, here's a random link to inform you: https://www.fixfamilycourts.com/single-mother-home-statistics/. Plenty of others out there if you want educate yourself.
though I hope the mother that ran was in a religious community not a deeply self absorbed mother.
A woman in a 'religious community' would never have been a surrogate.
Right. Because children raised by single mothers have a 0% rate of being molested. Because women are such angels that as long this child is kept away from one perverted man, the child is guaranteed to be safe.
What ridiculous pro-feminist propaganda.
I don't there are any things (that both men and women can do) that women are inherently better at than men. Why? It boils down to my previous point. Men are ultimately better at simply focusing on getting better at something, and this can be applied to any learnable skill. The are many male traits that contribute to this:
- Being able to be honest with yourself, including accepting that you (currently) suck at something, a key step in starting the cycle of self improvement (whereas a female trait is to tell herself that she is actually better than she thinks)
- Male competitiveness, which drives men to continuously outcompete their peers and outcompete themselves (whereas a female trait is to not compete at skill-based tasks, for fear of upsetting her social networks)
- Being a bit autistic about something and focusing on it blindly at the expense of all else, necessary to actually find the motivation to spend hours of repetition getting better at something (females do not seem to have the same ability to focus on one thing).
Add to that the inherent skills that men are better at than women, which they leverage to any problem they face, and you can easily see why men dominate everything.
But going back to your original point, I think that "being better at something" is a masculine way of thinking in itself. That's the first thing you think about (I'm assuming your male) because that's what matters in the male world. Being the best you can be at a certain thing.
Feminists and modern women have adopted a "near enemy" of "being better at something" in their desire to take on male roles (a near enemy being an poor approximation of the trait that is actually detrimental), and have decided the only reason they suck at things is discrimination and thus if they tell themselves they are good at something everything will be magically solved. Exhibit 1 for why women shouldn't try to be men, they just can't be because they aren't men and end up doing a half-assed job at it.
So then what at women good at? Well, the answer is staring right at your face. The first thing you thought about - who is the best at something - was a male way of thinking. That's why you'd suck at being a woman - because you think like a man instead of a woman. And so, the things that women are better are related to thinking like a woman. Being feminine.
Actual feminine roles don't involve being the best at something. Do you really need someone who is the 'best' mom? Or 'best' wife? You simply need someone who is a 'good' mom and 'good' wife. The feminine traits that contribute to these feminine roles aren't ones the fit on a simple measurable scale. Instead, being 'good' at these roles is highly subjective and highly situation-dependent. Thus, the female trait she should be excelling at is being able to devote her feminine brain into judging what she needs to do to support, nurture and care for her loved ones. Men are able to do these things, they are able to care for their children, they are able to support their wives but they do so in a different way. Men are capable of being good parents, and good husbands, but the role of a father is distinct from that of a mother, and the role of a husband is distinct of that of a wife, or at least is meant to be. Women are meant to bring things to the table that men aren't able to simply because men aren't women.
There is great value in these feminine traits, not just for raising children, but also in producing good relationships between men and women. Unfortunately, feminists have destroyed this by destroying the delineation between male and female roles. Thus, you have women doing a half-assed job at being men, and men doing a half-assed job at being women. Close relationships between men and women suffer tremendously from this because without the proper balance of masculinity and femininity brought skilfully the relationship, the relationship is shitty.
Meh. "Illness" fear porn isn't new, and certainly wasn't discovered with covid. You can easily find plenty of fearmongering articles written every winter for decades about how a surge of "respiratory illness" was going to lead to the hospitals being "overwhelmed". What happened in 2020 is so how most people actually started believing that shit. Unfortunately for those pushing these stories, the majority of people don't believe this shit anymore, after having fallen for the con once already, and I suspect won't for some time.
The secret weapon against feminists is male chastity. The ultimate source of female power in Western society is the worship of pussy. Men who are not beholden to pussy are not slaves to their desires and the women who control their access to sex.
Any self respecting man who truly wants to be free of feminists and their subversion would make it his mission to overcomes his sexual passions so he can be truly free, and do his bit to push back against unrestrained female power. This means no porn and no wanking, which only keeps a man enslaved to sexual passion and women. Sex with women should be linked to reproductive purposes, and thus limited to the willingness of the couple to have a child. A tough ask, maybe, but one that is as achievable as anything else a man puts his mind to.
One of the funniest things about (female) feminists is their inferiority complex. They know they are not as good at men at men's roles. So to make themselves "feel better" they invent fictional stories to reassure themselves that yes, they are actually as good at men in men's roles.
This argument is more revealing when one maps it on to male behavior. Let's say there's a man who sucks at something and feels bad about this because he wants to be good at it. What does he do:
- Actually go out and improve himself and get better at it; or
- Just make up a story about how he is actually good at doing that thing and so he feels better.
Most men would choose (1). A man who chooses (2) would be laughed at by everyone. Yet, what feminists (and women in general) do is choose (2). This is because in the female world, what matters isn't so much as actual physical reality, but rather social status. In the physical world, (1) is the only answer that makes sense. Reality doesn't care about the imaginary stories you tell yourself. But in a world where social status matters more, (2) is justified on the basis that reality isn't that important, rather what matters is what others think as they can then be manipulated into providing actual physical rewards to you.
What happens to a society when it becomes feminized so (2) becomes the dominant modus operandi is left as an exercise for the reader.
Pussyfooting around it doesn't work. Men have to stop doing that and just say "I'm better at it than you. Yes, because I'm a man. You go and do the things you're good at and I'll do what I'm good at."
men have a wider curve, women a narrower, peakier curve, which means more men will be clustered on either end of the curve
This gets repeated a lot but the actual truth is that the mean of men, for something like 'engineering ability', is greater than the mean for women, not just the variance. It is a male skill, and so men tend to be better at it. If you were talking about 'navigating complex social hierarchies', then of course the mean for women would be greater than men, because that is a feminine skill. Saying that men are women only differ in terms of the 'variance' for various 'masculine' intellectual abilities, rather than the mean, is feminist propaganda. Go on, ask a woman to read a map or navigate her way around a completely new area and see how well she goes.
In fact the whole tweet is very telling. The woman is complaining that the men in an engineering department are acting like men instead of women. The men are focusing on improving their engineering skills to rise up in the male competence hierarchy, how bizarre! And a woman not liking the engineering department because the men aren't acting like women and building some kind of ridiculous female social hierarchy? How could it be! Feminists told me that men and women are identical in every way (except men are more evil), so it can't be true.
The heroes journey is all about fucking up and overcoming your own fuck ups by effort and grit. Women can't be shown to be fuck ups, so their journeys are just fake.
The other reason it's fake is that "overcoming your own fuck ups by effort and grit" is much more of a male value than a female one. Not to say that women can't do it, but their usual response to "overcoming their own fuck ups" is to find the nearest man to fix it for them. So people can sense that female "hero's journey" stories aren't that realistic.
Feminism is finally making inroads into the final bastion of patriarchy in the West - the Church. And it is feminism that is the problem, for is feminism at the roots of most of the modern secular values that forms the "new" morality of a large proportion of the population in the West.
At it's heart, feminism is founded on the idea that women and men are identical. This is necessary for it's founding principle of patriarchy to hold sway - if men and women were not identical, then obviously they could well be roles better suited to men or women. But that can not be the case under feminism, for feminism requires that woman must be identical to men, and it is only discrimination by men against woman that has held women back in history. This very idea is so ridiculous that one wonders how it even became so widely accepted. The fact that men and women are different is obvious to anyone who has ever looked at or interacted with a man and a woman, which is everyone on the planet. But propaganda and emotional manipulation are powerful forces.
Feminism is the root of the trans-agenda (if men and women are identical, why can't they be interchangeable?). Feminism is the root of advocacy for abortion (in the name of "women's rights"). Feminism is the root of the single motherhood (men are nothing more than sperm donors). Feminism is the root of break up of families and unfair divorce laws (families represent the atomic units of patriarchy). Feminism is the root of why fertility rates are so low in many countries (motherhood is second fiddle to a women playing the role of a man and having a "career", as if careerism at the expense of other things in life was ever a virtue, even in men).
The Church has been through dark times before but the current crisis, in my mind, is largely to do with us, God's people. For as Archbishop Viganò said:
On the other hand, those who serve Satan are also ready to serve the Antichrist as king and to recognize his kingdom, of which the New World Order is an ominous prelude. But isn’t that ultimately what we do every time we disobey God?
Men have been so beaten down by feminism and attacks on their value they cannot see how they are contributing to all this by disobeying God themselves. But it's too hard they might say. "I much rather sit at home and play computer games and wank to porn. I much rather post pointless comments on an internet forum about how the pope is an "antipope" and whine all day. After all, I can't change anything by myself, I don't have enough power to do so."
But, the ingenuity of that simple point by Cardinal Viganò as apparent as soon as one turns it around. The way to fight against the evil in the world isn't by becoming a superhero and saving the world. The way to fight is to obey God. By fighting the demons in ourselves that lead us to sin and to vices that take us away from God and make us slaves to our passions. By us men recolonising the churches with and making our voices heard, instead letting them be dominated by female voices. By becoming men again, as we were meant to be, and simply telling women, "yes, I am better at you than some things, and you are better at other things than me", thereby encouraging women to be women rather than poor copies of men. And by looking to the men of the Church in times of past to be examples, who understood that the biggest enemy we have is usually the one inside us, whispering empty promises that take us away from God, and we can only become the men we need to be if we use our reason to overcome those temptations and live according to Truth. And if we manage that and only if we manage that, we will make inroads against evil.
Right, my rejection of hedonism and personal pleasures to sacrifice for someone else's future is "fixated by materialism."
What are you even going on about? You seem to have built this bizarre image in your head about me because I dared to criticised your stupid argument that "the only thing happens in life is having children". It's as if you are so insecure about that decision that you need to lash out irrationally against all who point out that it's not the only decision a man could make and have a life that "matters". It is you that are refusing to acknowledge that there is other good that can be done in this world apart from having children. I never said that it's wrong to have children.
Despite you thinking you are all holier than thou because you've produce a child (good for you), I have far higher regard for those who renounce hedonism, personal pleasures and having families of their own to do God's work, for they are even less driven by selfish motives than you. And yes, I will say selfish motives, for your argument for having children wasn't that this was to glorify God, but rather, to further your own genetic line. Despite pretending you are doing some great good by having children, your motives for doing so do seem rather self-serving.
ps. "Fixated for materialism" is entirely related to the materialistic ideology the espouses that the only things that matter to man's life are related to this material world. That path leads to hedonism and personal pleasures, and is perhaps why you are so insecure about your decision. You feel you are renouncing something you'd rather have, instead of knowing that heading down those paths are sins that draw you away from God, and it is right to denounce them.
Ah yes, "evolutionary psychology". The favorite field of behavioral determinists who observe some behavior in extant society, and instead of simply saying "this is how people are behaving, interesting, huh" they invoke a non-falsifiable hypothesis based on a pop-culture understanding of evolution to argue that such behavior is "in-built" in humans to fit their preferred political agendas. ("this is how people are behaving, and see I can come up with a theory that sounds convincing so that I can tell everyone this is how people are meant to behave).
Right, so its someone else's problem to solve, you are too special and important for such things. As I suspected would be your answer to the question I asked
Spreading the word of God is a way of solving many worldly issues, but it has a far more important role than that - it is a way of bringing all His people to salvation. The fact that you so fixated by materialism in this world that you cannot see anything of value in your existence beyond spreading your seed is sad, as I said originally, for it is preventing you seeing something far greater than yourself.
I've said my piece, and considering all you got against it was to open with an insult and then "its someone else's problem, not mine!" I feel pretty strong about it now.
All men have a future if they follow God. The life of the righteous does not end when they die in this world. Saying "A man has no future if he has no children, only his limited lifespan" is blasphemy, so yes, I am happy to call it out as I see it, if only to point out that your materialistic world view is not universally accepted.
And what use was Jesus and his disciples teachings if no one was alive in the next generation to receive them?
But there were plenty of people alive to receive them then. And there will continue to be plenty of people alive to receive them now and in the future. The birth rate isn't going to drop to zero just because some men decide they want to devote themselves to other purposes in life.
Glad we have reached using the Bible to justify ourselves though.
Indeed:
The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” (Matthew 19:10-12)
To this day, many men choose celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, and to spread His word, and that is a good thing.
I'm sure it said absolutely nothing about having children or taking wives and their importance.
He did say something important about marriage, yes. And He didn't say no one should have children. (specifically He said “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.").
But what Jesus definitely did not say was was that "A man has no future if he has no children, only his limited lifespan" (quoting your words directly) or that 'a man's only single function in life is having children' (paraphrasing your words), which is what I was rightfully ridiculing.
accomplish the only single function life is designed to fulfill.
How sad your life must be if you think having a child is the "only single function your life is designed to fulfill".
I suppose the life of Jesus and his disciples (those that had no children) was meaningless?
The fact is that many evangelical "Christians" commit a lot of heresies. One of the big ones is turning women into one of their gods, as they no longer are willing to accept women are people who sin, but rather perfect beings who must be accepted as marriage partners by men regardless of how they behave.
Creating an actual environment conducive to marriage would entail returning to proper Christian values such as teaching that sex should be confined to marriages that form an indissolubility bond between a man and a woman.
For some, it's because they hate Muslims so much that they can't see how their hate is being used against them.
Now I'm not saying people people should not be opposed to immigrant Muslims subverting their culture but they should be rational about dealing with this, instead of being blinded by hate that they are easily manipulated.
If you tell boys that being male is inherently evil (because all men are misogynistic, patriarchal and treat women poorly) while being female is inherently good (because all women are actually angels, and it's only because of men that women do wrong or fail to achieve as highly as men), plus actively discriminate in favor of girls and women, then don't be surprised if boys decide to "transition".
Yet plenty of people here hate trans-women with a passion, who in many cases are the victims of feminist ideology, rather than targeting those who pushed this ideology in the first place - the women and men who push feminism onto impressionable young boys and girls.
His post wasn't even informative though. "Wikipedia claims it is lingua franca in Singapore", which suggests that Wikipedia might be incorrect about this fact.
I was going to ask why the sign is in English, but Wikipedia claims English is lingua franca for government in Singapore.
But you still embarrassed yourself by showing you know nothing about Singapore and yet still feel fit to post a pointless comment.
So close... Maybe that means that men and women are different, and that deciding the "bed sheet colour" is something best left for women? What does it matter if your husband sucks at choosing the bed sheet colour, when you are there to 'correctly' choose the bed sheets for your family?
Shudder. Couldn't be. Dividing labour in marriage and society is according to what each sex does best is anti-feminist.