Trying to "get" women as a goal in itself is a bad plan. In simple terms, women don't like desperate men, and they can tell from men's behaviour how desperate they are. Setting a goal to "get" a woman increases your desperation, especially if you set a numeric goal to attain, and thus is counter productive. A better tactic is to improve yourself in other ways, take opportunity to flirt when they arise but be indifferent to actually "getting" women.
That 41% number is often quoted as a rate of suicide among trans individuals. It is inflated as such because the question that gave rise to that number was "have you ever attempted suicide", not number of actual suicides. The article points this out.
The thing with New Zealand is we do everything half-arsed. That's one thing no one seems to take into account.
Merry Christmas, mate! I've given you shit in the past because I think men are meant to just say it as it as, rather than pussy-footing around.
For what it's worth, I suggest you try to find like-minded people in your area, no doubt they exist even in the woke-hotbeds of Australia. I'm not really familiar with the players over there, but Reignite Democracy Australia springs to mind as a first point of call.
By doing this he gave privileged access to assets to HIS OWN BAHAMA RESIDENT employees.
This dodgy as fuck, yes, but seriously, you think this is to benefit his employees? Bahamas is a tax haven. The investors from the Bahamas are likely rich and powerful people who are "resident" there to enjoy those tax benefits. They are not the kind of people that would take kindly to being ripped of, and likely have their own "solutions" to this. The authorities in Bahamas no doubt weren't happy that their "residents" were ripped of in a scam like this as well. Sure, this probably isn't the first scam ran from within their country, but those scams are meant to target little people, not local Bahamas "residents".
I wouldn't be surprised if SBF was actually pressured to do this, despite the email, either by the authorities or perhaps more likely he had a "friendly" visit from a couple of men representing one of the local "residents".
Pardon my ignorance about the history of the Americas, but aren't "Latin Americans" also descended from European colonists?
Have you considered the possibility that the news report and comments are astroturfing to market this show?
She lost far more than $1.3B.
The reason the "0 casualties" was emphasized was because he was following John Connor's orders to not kill people (including the police) who were not the bad guys. There was no reason for him to go on an indiscriminate murder spree to eliminate a threat -- there was only 1 threat and he shot the shit out of it every chance he got.
Exactly. The OP appears to be advocating that indiscriminate use of violence just for the heck of it is somehow "masculine", and advocating that the use of controlled violence is somehow "soy" or "feminist". On the contrary, an appropriate expression of violence is controlled violence, not indiscriminate violence. In addition, the characterisation of "male violence" as being largely indiscriminate is a flawed feminist understanding of violence. In other words, advocating indiscriminate violence is probably more "soy" than castigating it.
For those who don't want to watch a video, the report by Toby Young is here: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/12/05/oxford-county-councillors-to-introduce-trial-climate-lockdown-in-2024/
This in turn cites other news sources.
I understand the idea behind your comment (that leftist will reject any data that is not politically correct, but a computer won't), but I think your argument is really only boiling down to an exercise in semantics:
-
Obviously, data can actually be wrong. A trivial example is where someone has erroneously recorded the number of people living in a city, as say, -100. This number is clearly wrong as it is impossible for a negative number of people to be living in a city. You seem to have provided an out in your comment in that this data point won't be "wrong" per se, but rather "measure(d) improperly" etc., or that it is not "syntactically valid". Yet the latter arguments are merely questions of semantics. Is something not "wrong" if it was "measured incorrectly" or if it was "syntactically invalid"?
-
A human programming a computer that is processing population size would probably set an range of valid inputs, and only allow integer inputs above or equal to zero, which is a sensible choice for this kind of data. In doing so, the human is effectively telling the computer what data is "wrong" - a negative population size is invalid and "wrong". Again, you could say that a negative population size isn't "wrong", it's simply "syntactically invalid", but this is just an argument about semantics.
-
A human could also program a computer to only accept a mean IQ for all populations to be 100. That is, any number that is not equal to 100 is "wrong" or "syntactically invalid". Here, the computer is rejecting any data that does not agree with it's programming. In what what is a computer programmed in this way "attached to a hard connection to reality"? It's only attached to a hard connection to its programming.
-
The actual difference between the computer and the human is that the computer is acting on explicit programming for particular cases of information that is deemed to be "wrong" by its programmers. It is therefore possible to "fool" the computer to by finding edge cases in which the programmers did not explicitly exclude. The computer is unable to understand that information and make inferences about what that information might convey, so it can't be programmed to follow a more general rule about what information is "wrong" (e.g. because it is politically incorrect). The leftist human, on the other hand, is perfectly capable of doing just that. They can understand what is implied by certain pieces of information, and reject it because it does not follow their political ideals and is therefore "wrong" (here, they could be doing this completely subconciously without even knowing they are doing it).
-
This means that the difference between the computer and the leftist human has nothing to do with "introspection". It's merely that the human can understand the implications of certain data, and the computer can not. If the computer was able to understand the implications of certain data, it could be programmed to find that information "wrong" (or "syntactically invalid").
Didn't read the article and don't plan to, but presumably this idiot is looking for attention. Perhaps don't give them more attention by spreading it further that it already has?
"talk of these peoples sex lives was a distraction from their criminal acts"
Pointing out that corrupt people have "one rule for my mates and another for other people" is (1) an obvious no-brainer and (2) not the same as discussing the irrelevant details of their sex lives. Couldn't stop yourself.
A few days ago you were saying that talk of these peoples sex lives was a distraction from their criminal acts. That was a good point. Pity you couldn't stop yourself.
This argument is only true if you push it to extreme
Not even then. If pushed to the extreme, and all/most men in a country then that country is f**ked both economically (not enough people to do useful work) and militarily (not enough people to defend the country), so it really doesn't matter if that country has plenty of women to produce babies. Any babies produced will no doubt be the babies of the invaders, not the original inhabitants.
"Protecting women" as the reason for not allowing women in the military is gynocentric myth. The reality is that the main reason for only allowing men in the military is that men are physically able to do so and generally more competent; having a poor performing military, which is what would happen if there were many women in it, is probably worse than having no military.
It would rely on people seeing 90% of people around them drop dead,
I've seen Imp make this claim, and my interpretation of it was always that 90% of people who developed myocarditis would 'drop dead', not that 90% of people taking this "vaccines" would drop dead, i.e. the so-called 'mild' myocarditis, which mainly affected boys and men, was anything but 'mild'. In my view, you are deliberately misinterpreting what he said to 'win' a pointless internet argument. How sad.
Physical violence, particularly the unarmed physical murder of a spouse is damn near universally committed by males.
Your characterisation of physical violence here seems to me to be overly specific, and deliberately so, in order to defend your initial position that is flawed. Of course "unarmed physical murder" is more commonly performed by men. Women, as a general rule, simply aren't strong enough to physically murder someone without being armed. They can and do, of course, use weapons to murder men, and physically harm men in other ways (throwing things is a classic one), and often when the man is unable to defend themselves (e.g. unconscious). Plenty of studies show that rates of domestic physical violence perpetrated by women is as high as that of men. Feminists, however, have deliberately hidden this evidence from view as it is doesn't agree with this narrative.
I'd say it's you is going too far by going up with specific scenarios to try to salvage a definition of certain behaviours that in reality isn't a very useful definition. It's actually a tactic used by feminists a lot. When anyone points out to a feminist that domestic violence is perpetrated at equal rates by men and women, they pivot to physical violence leading to "severe harm" instead; which still does tend to be inflicted more commonly on women by men, but mainly because men are physically stronger than women, not because women don't display physically violent behaviour.
Interest rate rises cause currencies to increase in relative strength as investors buy those currencies to get higher returns. Japan does not have high inflation and their interest rates remain very low.
Feb 2021 to Feb 2022. Anyone who didn't got out of longs before/at the climax of that period is now holding the bags.
Mate, the OP might be a Russian shill, fair enough. But you are only making it very clear that you are a shill with ridiculously transparent comments like this. And if you aren't being paid for it, then that's even worse - you're just donating your time to push someone else's talking points.
Someone accidentally swigged a massive amount of caffeine (10g or so; he thought it was protein powder but wasn't put off by the bitter taste - go figure) in Australia (I think) and there were calls to ban sales of caffeine powder.
A reasonable analysis. You've missed out one part that I think is important: convincing men that sex is the most most important symbol of "masculinity", which is where the sexual revolution led, also allows women to:
- Define what is "masculine" or not. Think about how much men seek to look or behave is determined by them trying to access sex.
- Gives them incredible power over men. Women have used sex as weapon for all time, but this behaviour is now on overdrive.
That's why sensible men should reject sexual shaming of other men outright. Yet, many men, even those who think they are red-pilled, persist. This isn't about being anti-sex, it's about reclaiming masculinity so that men get to define what is masculine or not. Letting women define masculinity leads to disaster as what they value from a man is generally very hedonistic and self-centred.
This is a rather shallow analysis. In woke culture, plenty of people, behaviours and values are considered "objectively" better than others. Women are better than men. Black people are better than white people. Trans are better than non-trans. Muslims are better than Christians. Yes, wokeness no longer considers traditional values as being "good" (these values have been "flattened" if you like), but it hasn't removed "meritocracy" per se, it has just redefined what is meritorious.
As TheImp points out, feigning doesn't work because they can still tell you are just faking it. I meant actually being disinterested, rather than trying to fake it.
And easy of achieving this level of "disinterest" is embracing aspects of MGTOW i.e. being realistic about relationships and realising in most cases a relationship is going to make many aspects of your life worse rather than better, so it's not really that important. If someone comes along that brings enough positives to outweigh the negatives, than fair enough, give it a go, but otherwise "romantic" relationships are generally not worth it.