OMFG, the best part was that after she complained that he didn't take her to a nicer restaurant, he told her it was because she was late and showed her the proof that he had a reservation they missed.
At least he had the dignity to cancel the date because of her behavior.
"Make his pockets hurttt" with a shot of the bill at the end. Then a quick cut to her in a pose she obviously thinks makes her fat ass look cute.
The entitlement and narcissism is off the charts.
Wild-haired psycho, who looks 20 years post-wall, raging incoherently. Turned it off after the first minute.
And she's an "influencer", which just means she thinks she should make money for existing.
As I said, weighing costs and benefits and taking the most efficient course of action isn't sitting on your ass or giving up. It's accepting reality and optimizing your experience in life based on it.
I'll ask again: what is your proposed solution? Your answer so far seems to be simply "remake society to enforce traditional values on women". Believing that the Western world is going to just wake up and decide that they're doing it wrong is pure fantasy. And unless you've got the largest army the world has ever seen you're not going to be able to force it on them either.
I'm not sure where you're getting "giving up" from MGTOW. It's a very rational calculation of the costs and benefits of entering into a relationship or marriage or having children and deciding that the cost exceed the benefits.
If you cancel your cable subscription because they raise the price and you no longer feel you're getting an appropriate level of value in return, do you also consider that "giving up" on cable?
The freedom to not enter into a relationship is one of the few you've got left. Once you're dating or married there are plenty of laws that strip you of personal agency and help transfer your wealth to women. MGTOW maximizes your benefits by protecting you from that. If the situation changes to make it worthwhile to date again, then great, but MGTOW optimizes you for the reality today.
So yeah, my proposal for fixing this is hijack the societal brainwashing apparatus and recalibrate it to call whores bad people again and praise women who are loyal.
Oh gotcha, we'll just rewrite how society works. And how do we do that?
Well, we could change a bunch of laws. Oh shit, the government is 100% in favor of females and actively supports pro-female discrimination in the workplace and family court is pretty much designed to extract everything possible from men and give it to women. They're probably not going to jump on board with your big plan.
How about the media? We could use them to change social norms. Too bad buddy, they're in lockstep with the government. They paint even moderate men's rights activists as wackos; they're absolutely not going to adopt your point of view. Slut shaming is probably the nicest thing they'll accuse you of.
So whadda you got left?
It's trivially easy to please a male. You just have to be moderately attractive and a nice person who cares about them. Yet the overwhelming majority of women fail to meet these simple prerequisites.
I have never met a man in my entire life that has judged a woman based on their height, education, job, or wealth. We do judge based on weight and looks, but that's just biology- you're not going to want to mate with someone if you don't find them physically attractive.
So then what's your proposed solution?
I see MGTOW as recognizing both the biological limitations of women, and the societal institutions set up to advance their interests at the expense of men. Nothing can change biology, but by saying "I'm out until you fix your shit" you can possibly incentivize society to change. And if it doesn't, so be it- at least you're not playing a losing game.
Men's rights groups have tried working within the system to change it and failed. Your remaining choices are to submit and become an ATM for some woman, or walk away.
Yes, renouncing citizenship in a foreign nation only works if that Nation recognizes the renunciation.
For example, I heard that Mexico considers you a citizen forever, and won't recognize any attempt to renounce your Mexican citizenship.
Israel has a "right of return" for any jew. If you're Jewish, you can go there and join the IDF. I don't know why you would want to, but the option is there.
The South Koreans make you relinquish your citizenship when you become an adult if you're an also an American citizen; otherwise they will scoop you up for mandatory military service.
For reference, many US citizens also served in the British or Canadian militaries in WWI and WWII prior to our entry into those wars.
I got the same story from a friend. I reminded him that they said the Germans were spearing babies with bayonets in World War I and I wasn't going to believe it without video proof. He said there was video, so where is it?
It's a shame that consumer demand for physical media has largely melted away, because streaming is not a true substitute for owning a DVD.
There's obviously issues with selection. I can't find Friday the 13th on any of the four streaming services I have access to during the month of October, for example. But more than that, the new trend of editing old content to make it comply with "modern values" or simply discontinuing publication of certain movies and books should have woken up the general populace to the value and actually owning your own copy, but it probably didn't.
Yes, in the TOS, but it directly contradicts the plain language verbiage regarding Amazon's offer to purchase the movie. The options presented on the product page are "rent" or "buy" not "rent" or "rent indefinitely".
Under US law, when the technical terms of a contract contradict the plain language of the purported offer, they are void. This was hashed out long before computers even existed, because you have always had swindlers that would do shit like advertise a car on a car lot and then when you sign the actual purchase contract they buried a line in there that says you're buying a Hot Wheels car for $30,000.
The court in this case erred by allowing Amazon to continue using the language "buy or purchase" on the product page as their licensing agreement never gave them the authority to sell the film in the first place. It's intentionally deceptive, as they know what they are offering you is in fact an indefinite rental.
There's nothing immoral or illegal about offering an indefinite rental, the problem is that they represented it as a purchase instead of what it really was
I feel like I need to point out from a technical perspective, you absolutely can own digital media, it's just that people are rightly noticing almost all major studios now are in favour of making you rent your game.
You're absolutely right that is technically possible to create a digital copy that you truly own. Unfortunately the courts don't treat you as owning digital content, even if it was purported to be a purchase rather than a rental.
In this CA case, the court ruled in favor of Amazon because buried in their terms of service it says you don't really own your purchase, even though the website clearly makes the distinction between buying and renting a movie and it doesn't say anywhere that anyone would actually read that "buy" means something other than its common usage: https://www.askthelawyers.com/read-article/lawsuit-confirms-that-customers-dont-own-movies-purchased-on-amazon-prime
This should have been bright letter law: courts have always ruled the clauses buried in contracts are void when they contradict The up front language that a customer should be able to take at face value. Meaning, if Amazon says you are "buying" a digital copy of a movie, the universally accepted understanding is that that means it becomes yours in perpetuity and you are also free to resell it. If their licensing agreements with the studios don't allow them to sell something in this manner, then legally they shouldn't be allowed to purport that you can "buy" the film from them. To allow otherwise is to allow Amazon to commit fraud.
I suspect the same holds true for every other digital purchase: buried in the terms somewhere is a statement that you "own" your purchase only so long as the seller wants to maintain your access.
Unfortunately, digital sales are better for game companies in every way: no money spent on manufacturing and distribution, a wealth of data on consumer behavior because they know what every single person has bought and installed on their machine, and no used game market to compete with new sales.
The problem is most of that doesn't benefit the consumer in any way. I refuse to buy digital games, because you never truly own them.
Of course modern physical discs usually just direct you to download 100 GB of updates anyway, making me wonder if there's even a game on there. But that's a different problem.
So, Amazon's showroom will no longer carry the only thing I buy there. I guess I'm not surprised, as I've seen their video game shelves dwindle down to almost nothing over the last 5 years.
Their sale prices on video games and blu-rays were often cheaper than online retailers, with the added advantage that you could take it home immediately and not have to worry about it being beat to shit in shipping.
I wouldn't dream of buying a TV, appliance, or computer from them, so I guess I'll just never shop there again.
So this confuses me. They were a pirate site, and everyone knew they were pirate site, and then an investment company drops millions of dollars into them so they can go legit.
Doesn't that just expose the investment to lawsuits from all the companies whose content they were pirating? I mean, a studio may send a cease and desist letter but never pursue serious court action because there's no assets to take from a website that's run by a couple of college students. But once they get an influx if cash, now there's something worth suing over. Even if they stopped posting pirated content, shouldn't their previous acts still be subject to litigation?
Clearly that didn't happen, but I'm just wondering why.
The terms "actively harmful" and "misinformation" will be defined by your local Democrat commissar of course. I'm pretty sure every oppressive regime in history of mankind justified silencing their opposition on the grounds that they were harmful and spreading misinformation.
"I believe in free speech, but..."- all this means is that the same bullshit the left has been spewing for decades pushing gun control is now being used against the first Amendment as well.
Which is why they've worked overtime to make prior sexual acts inadmissible in court.
Past behavior is the most reliable predictor of future behavior, and often these things go to trial as little more than he said/she said accusations (which means it's impossible to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt and they never should have gone to trial in the first place, but that's a completely different argument).
"She's done the same exact thing 50 times and never cried rape before" is a powerful statement when you're asking the jury to basically pick who is more credible without any real evidence to support either side. So of course women and the government don't want to let you make that argument.
I despise the term "rape survivor". The term "survivor" is reserved for events that could have possibly killed you. There are plane crash survivors, wild animal attack survivors, murder attempt survivors, etc.
Rape is a traumatic physical assault, but unless there was another element to the crime that involved the risk of death, it's not a potentially fatal event and it's inappropriate to use the term survivor to describe people who have been raped.
LMFAO. I see the original site for the article had 4.2K comments. Any idea if some of the posters brought that inconvenient truth up?
Honestly, I've always thought Trump is an asshole, but at this point he has got to be the politician most scrutinized and picked at by the media in US history. I honestly don't care if the bad shit they say about him is true anymore, because they are just endlessly fishing for derogatory things to say about him.
It's petty and in bad faith, and says more about them than the alleged things they are reporting on.
If Russia hasn't already privately communicated that with the first NATO soldier they find in Ukraine they will kick off World War 3 by vaporizing every NATO country's capital they're doing it wrong.
That's the beauty of nuclear deterrence, you don't have to be able to win a war, you just have to be able to devastate the other side so bad that it doesn't matter who wins.
they have my phone number, credit card, etc.
Why in earth would you give a social media site that stuff?
Maybe I'm just a dinosaur, but I still view any sort of posting on the internet as the kind of place where somebody with a handle like "clitcrusher69" will anonymously post how they want to fuck your mom while you watch because you don't agree about the best Star Wars character.
It's not a place to be sharing personal information, and it never should be taken too seriously.
So, just like Best Buy? I guess I'm not surprised. After years of not owning a console, I picked up an Xbox about 4 years ago and I've watched the inventories at both those stores dwindle in real time. Target too.
They used to have 30+ current titles, and a decent selection of discount games. Now they're down to a handful of current titles and no discount games at all.