I don't think it's simply a matter of population distribution.
Society is so saturated in media and advertising that the concepts of sexual attractiveness are becoming more abstract. Think about the way that women find wealth sexually attractive. Wealth is not even a secondary sexual characteristic. Now consider how absolutely fake today's image of an attractive woman is. When the male population has been programmed to be attracted to makeup, extensions, fake eyelashes, fake tits, and fake ass... it starts to not matter who they're installed on because it's the fake elements themselves eliciting the attraction.
Then you have feminism encouraging women to act like men, removing a social differentiator. You've got physical characteristics that are less specific to women, social characteristics that are less specific to women. "But only women carry children." Okay but now everyone is just getting pets because prolonged adolescence and phobia of responsibility has rendered a generation incapable of seeing themselves as adult enough to raise a family, removing that from the equation.
That's bad enough but then you take into account the huge advantages that women are given legally that makes them hazardous.
In light of all that, of course we're seeing the shifts we are. The less women have to offer and the more dangerous they are to interact with romantically, the more fuckable the cute twink in a skirt becomes. And the window keeps sliding.
it seems like anyone involved in online politics is gay.
Traditionally masculine men aren't spending their time terminally online.
And recently there was also another "British" guy in Japan called "David Atkinson" who tweeted , "Is there any evidence that black slavery was not widespread in Japan?"
Is there any evidence that David Atkinson doesn't currently own slaves? I eagerly await him proving a negative /s
Imagine you're standing on a beach when the water recedes very very far. Do you yell "tsunami" at everyone in range as loud as you can? Or do you go up to each of them, strike up a conversation, and slip in "what are your thoughts on high ground? Personally, I think it's a good policy."
They sperging out because they're in a perpetual state of thinking that we're already teetering on the point of no return and they're panicked. If that's rational is an exercise left up to the reader but that is why those posts go the way they do.
His examples of Eastern websites look just like Western ones did in the 90s and early 00s. It wasn't until relatively recently that the minimalist flat thing became trendy. But this guy choosing to use login pages as the examples of Western design is really disingenuous.
Screenshots of the Yahoo homepage 1996 - 2016. Changes in design are interesting. So is the invasion of ads.
https://mashable.com/feature/yahoo-history
Mostly driven by technical improvements up until 2006. Then it gets "decluttered" with a creeping emphasis on what other people are watching/reading. Then the "popular searches" starts moving up in emphasis. Then it finishes 2016 with a third of the page being ads, then "trending," and then [artificially] surfaced articles about politics and entertainment. In 10 years it went from a tool, a directory service, to something designed to push curated narratives to you.
Attacking from behind, attacking 2+ against one, attacking someone on the ground when you are standing, attacking someone who is incapable of defending himself
I think some of those might already be escalations in degree or to aggravated assault. But the charge really doesn't matter when you have a Soros-appointed DA who is going to let them walk regardless of the crime.
Yeah. I'm also a little wary of the these headlines until the content of the messages comes out because I remember my teenage years on things like IRC and no one knew how old anyone else was.
Whenever someone says "texted a minor," I wonder if it's grooming or a direct message like "ops are on the warpath tonight. watch out," or just shit said in a channel with hundreds of people because it's still technically texting. Given the context of this one, there's less benefit of the doubt because pattern recognition exists, but I trust Internet rumor mongers only slightly more than the mainstream media.
the Slim Shady song "Wasn't Me."
What kind of retard makes a pop culture reference while questioning someone in congress while you were making an otherwise good point? Then what kind of mega retard confuses Shaggy with Eminem?
it's a bit of a mess
Putting it lightly. SoctaticMethod1 is right. If I wasn't already this far in, I would have bailed. Irregular also had a really weak season. Which is a shame because it started out as an interesting universe.
I liked Loser Ranger, but was pissed off by people online constantly comparing it to The Boys as if they invented the idea of public-facing "heroes" being the bad guys. The key difference here is that it has a protagonist instead of "everyone is bad" navel-gazing. D's a fun MC.
Are we in the same universe?
I'm not making a quality comment on any of these but just last season off the top of my head:
- Irregular at Magic Highschool S3: OP, knows it, secure, popular, insanely competent.
- How to Love Your Elf Bride: OP, knows it, confident, albeit clueless about women
- Slime Isekai S3: OP, knows it. Created a nation-state because he thought it would be fun. Beloved by his people.
- The Misfit of Demon King Academy S2: OP, knows it. I can't adequately explain how self-confident and unreasonably competent that motherfucker is.
- Loser Ranger: Despite "Loser" being in the title and having every in-world reason to feel he's a loser: is not a loser and quite clever.
How about you provide a couple of recent examples of the series you're talking about? Are you only watching the mandatory couple of "In another world but stuff" that come out every season? I'm just not seeing the "loser MC" thing as that broad of a trend lately.
I don't know if it's accurate, but I've seen it being said that since the Biden donors contributed to a "Biden/Harris" ticket in the first place, they can. In fact that might be the main reason why the Dems are pushing her: because she was the only one who could use those existing donations without legal risk.
It's so simple that you can read anything you want into it.
Parenthood, Jesus, men giving their all to country, anything that involves a positive take on self-sacrifice. Or just take it as a pro-industrial allegory. Natural resources want to be used by mankind. The tree takes joy in being harvested. The ore takes joy in being smelted. They exist for mankind's benefit and are fulfilled by their purpose.
If Impy weren't banned, he could tell you that the child represents women and the tree is a simp.
You can be born to a drug addicted mother or you can be born to billionaire parents
It's not a statement trying ignoring genetics or parental impact on a child and saying it's all random. It's a framing that only really works if you believe in a soul as the defining feature of a person. The "lottery" aspect is looking at it as if you're a soul about to be born onto earth. Then which parents and their circumstances are the random part.
It's just saying you didn't pick your parents and have to work with the opening hand you were dealt.
If you don't accept the framing then the sentiment doesn't make sense. The crack whore's kid could never have been born to the hardworking parents and vice-versa. In that case there's no possibilities because there's nothing comprising "you" before birth.
Bullseye is a make believe characters guys. There's no person on this planet who is a good enough shot that you would trust enough to instruct with, "nick just the tip of my ear at 140 yards while my head is moving."
We don't know why he was allowed to stand back up for 9 seconds during an active shooting
Yeah we do. Diversity hire agents who weren't capable of fulling their duties.
The correct holding amount was 12 contracts, or 1,200 shares— not 12 million shares, as was filed in error.
In submitting the required report for the second quarter of 2024, a multiplier was applied by a third-party vendor that increased the number of the shares by a multiple of 10,000 for all options contracts (not just DJT).
Lol. They're not even claiming one error. They're claiming two. A normal options contract is 100 shares. Typing 1,200 instead of 12 (neglecting the 1:100) for 1,200 shares is understandable if you were brand new to options - which no one at a fucking wealth management firm should be. But then they're also claiming that some third-party vendor made it 1:10,000. So they wanted 12 contracts for 100 shares each and instead asked for 1,200 contracts of 10,000 shares each.
The first "error" is hard to evaluate either way. The second one though... were all their options trades in that filing off by a factor of 100 (10k vs 100)? Or did it mysteriously affect only the one trade?
BUT if that option position never actually existed and everything in that filing just misrepresented their actual positions by x100... partially plausible, but still looks awful bad.
The 1st Amendment also protects freedom of association. Which means not wanting to be associated with idiots is a 1st Amendment right as well.
Unfortunately, that part of the right has been gutted over the years.
The problem with cancel culture isn't when two parties don't want to be associated. It's when an outside force causes that state by interference. "Fire them or else," is issue. And it's a moral issue, not a legal one.
It's probably all related. Finding out the degrees of all the causes and effects would require actual scientific study and "the science" is only allowed to find permitted results these days.
Surprised there hasn't been a push of "low T is a good thing" articles. Or maybe there was and I missed it.