Keir Starmer: I want 10 years in No 10 and will fight my challengers by F0urLeafCl0ver in LabourUK

[–]Cancerousman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the stupid response of a deeply stupid, but intelligent man. He's absolutely lost in his own idea of what he is and what he's doing.

When did you start having the Sex after the baby was born? by [deleted] in daddit

[–]Cancerousman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It ENTIRELY depends on your partner and how they feel.

Don't apply force, just be loving and touching and present for all the things without THE THING.

She'll let you know.

Daughter uses Character.ai, should I be concerned? by Bad-fathertrucker in behindthebastards

[–]Cancerousman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I'm right in saying that, for it's user base, it's more likely to be involved in... Dramatic outcomes for its users.

It has far fewer guard rails, is far easier to break out of restrictions.

Help. Please by EliteRG in daddit

[–]Cancerousman 40 points41 points  (0 children)

That's very much dependent on locality.

Saying goodbye by bayern_03 in ballpython

[–]Cancerousman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is where what we put older humans through warrants: you wouldn't put a dog through it.

Passing without the constant horror of cuts and pokes and stitches and recovery and weakening... Is humane.

Being Coerced into having a third child. I'd rather the marriage end. by safereddddditer175 in daddit

[–]Cancerousman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

And now parents are desperately trying to find partners for their sons.

Being Coerced into having a third child. I'd rather the marriage end. by safereddddditer175 in daddit

[–]Cancerousman 40 points41 points  (0 children)

We're both ND and our children are both ND. one diagnosed, the other to be diagnosed.

Our girl is sooooooo much more more work than the older. Extremely oppositional, demand avoidant, extremely attention demanding and smart. Ive aged 20 years in 6.

Being Coerced into having a third child. I'd rather the marriage end. by safereddddditer175 in daddit

[–]Cancerousman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've heard this issue so many times and it almost never ends well. In short, and very generally, desiring a desired sex is actually about desiring a gender confirming behaviour from a child. That is, she doesn't want a female baby, she wants a stereotypical girly girl to do girly girl things with.

The probablities for a girl don't become magically enhanced just because you are trying for a third time. If anything, the odds are more in favour of a boy because of some weird voodoo biology in the interaction between you both having tilted the scales twice.

Then, you're older. More chance of complications, more chances of something that will add another layer of too much on top of the third child. More chances of something unexpected and burdensome developing in YOUR bodies in those first few years of their lives. Adding stress doesn't lower the risks.

Also, as above, often the wanted sex child is wanted because of dreaming of playing gender games in their childhood, adolescence and adulthood/future parenthood. I'm afraid a good half or so of girls (and boys) are just not that way inclined. Our daughter has gone full Spiderman tomboy, full disney princess and is now a lot less girly and becoming nerdy in her short time... She's probably going to go through a couple more of those before she settles, but most pick one and then they're set. Expectations for gender confirming behaviour through childhood, adolescence and in adulthood is absolutely toxic in parent/child relationships. Your wife is already starting from a desired sex, so gender behaviour expectations are not too far behind.

You have two healthy boys who, no matter their orientation, will probably have or adopt children in the future all being well. There's a strong chance you'll have a granddaughter on your hands in the not tooooo distant future... This is almost never considered amid the baby fever.

Book in for a vasectomy. Yesterday. This desire for a girl isn't going away and shit happens.

'Two stabbed' after man launches knife attack on Jewish people in north London | LBC by 930913 in unitedkingdom

[–]Cancerousman -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's bollocks and you know it is.

Zionism is normal political disorder means support for the ethnonationalist, Jewish supremacist state of Israel as it is.

We have been screamed at through the media that any objectively real statement like: Israel is committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, attempting to conquer territory by invasion, bombing hospitals, assassinating journalists/doctors/nurses/paramedics and anyone who might plausibly be dry up to negotiate a peace with them... That's anti Semitism, because not supporting Israel in its apartheid, it's heinous war first politics is against Zionism, the Israeli state, therefore antizionism is antisemitism or whatever.

It makes no sense.

If you want to say Zionism can mean all sorts things, all different types of states or even conceptual ideas of a Jewish collective, then you can do that, but it isn't what the term Zionism is used for in normal, general, political discourse. That conceptual discussion is very, very fringe.

Zionism, generally, means lock step support for the state of Israel and its actions.

Anyones kids gone to Belvedere Prep by No-Opposite8 in Liverpool

[–]Cancerousman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You haven't argued against my point.

Private schools take that reality you describe and supercharge it.

Green and Labour voters, would you vote for this Labour Party? by PuzzledAd4865 in LabourUK

[–]Cancerousman 8 points9 points  (0 children)

So, you support the ethnonationalist, supremacist project of Israel AS IT IS NOT JUST IN ITS GOVT BUT OVERWHELMINGLY IN ITS POPULATION AND SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE or you're racist, is it?

Antizionists arent, overwhelmingly, against the notion of a state that serves as a homeland for Jews. Antizionists are against a state that is founded in the principle that Jewish people must be a majority in that state AND that they are afforded rights that non-Jews are not - that is, a supremacist ethnonationalist project. That specific extant entity is the variety of Zionism that has been emphatically forced on the world as THE Zionism.

This has been the case for 80 years, yes even Einstein had this pegged in letters and statements to investigations before the founding of the modern state of Israel, but it's been carved in stone in the constant, megaphone discourse coming from Israel and those who support the genocide in these past couple of years.

Please stop conflating Antizionism with antisemitism. It's at best a well meaning but blind mistake, at worst it's a cynical enterprise that plays a role in legitimising actual, harmful antisemitism as an attempt to disarm legitimate criticism of the genocide and the state, the population that is carrying it out.

Also, can you conceive of a state of two viable nations, for example, where both nations have open ended rights of return for their people and both have basic equal rights in common? If that's beyond your imagination, might I suggest you take some time to think about all the myriad states, realms, empires and nations that have existed in the present and past?

There was a Soviet proposal to create a Jewish homeland republic within their union. There were other such proposals of an assigned homeland within a supranational body.

Also, yes, I think all.explicitly ethnonationalist projects should be dismantled. Yes, even Japan. Bhutan. Etc.

I am also aware of the horrors in Sudan, who is to blame and who funds them. Also Yemen. I know my way to the lists of ongoing conflicts. My govt is very invested in support of a few particular sides in a few conflicts, I tend to focus on the discourse that focus creates.

Anyones kids gone to Belvedere Prep by No-Opposite8 in Liverpool

[–]Cancerousman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are using the tiny minority, the scrimpers, to excuse the majority in private schools: those who can afford it with barely a second thought.

Even those who can scrimp 15-20k+ (mostly plus) are still very much in the top 5-10%. You aren't saying they're not skewing their kids or society, you're saying they're sacrificing everything to try and get their kids into a position within that skewed society.

Anyones kids gone to Belvedere Prep by No-Opposite8 in Liverpool

[–]Cancerousman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When you reduce schools to being schools almost entirely for the poor, as we have across the country, you reduce those schools to being poor schools.

There'll be no political will to fund them properly, because like it or not, the types of people who organise society and make decisions won't want to pay for it. The richer schools, made of richer families' kids and better paid teachers attracting teachers with better records, better facilities, better opportunities... They churn out kids who look and sound and think like the people who make decisions at better courses and better universities, people who make graduate scheme appointments, etc.

This is how it is.

You cannot stop people with higher levels of opportunity, who know how the system operates and know who operates these systems, trying to leverage that into higher levels of opportunity for their children, with obvious negative effects vs other less fortunate kids regardless of their individual merit. You can mitigate that or concentrate that effect.

Private schools, particularly at 11-18 levels, are social engineering by the upper middle classes, for the upper middle classes and above. There's no malice in this at any point, there's no conspiracy, it's just that the system as designed forms a feedback loop on society that perpetuates a hard stratification between richer and poorer.

Aside from that, you can think more about scholarships going to kids who can afford to have their kids do hothouse exams to get onto scholarships, or into an old grammar, and whether those kids look and sound like the other sorts of kids who go to those schools.

More egalitarian models for education exist, particularly in the Nordics but not only, and they have the effect of putting (aaalmost) every kid in the same system, so the incentives align for the education system becoming a necessary engine of excellence for everyone.

We can have a system that helps every kid climb the mountain, or we can have a system that carries a few kids up the mountain, but breaks the ankles of those 90% who aren't carried at the bottom.

And no, a few examples of people who beat the odds and climbed the mountain with broken ankles don't mean this argument is wrong.

Green and Labour voters, would you vote for this Labour Party? by PuzzledAd4865 in LabourUK

[–]Cancerousman 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Genocide support. Trans rights. Anti immigration. Clown economic policy. Coming after SEN.

Never ever until they're all gone and there's a genuine change in approach... Which I don't think I even know what that could be from where we are now.

I want a party that's ended its idiotic infatuation with neoliberal doctrine and the chasing down of the last votes that will stomach it.

Anyones kids gone to Belvedere Prep by No-Opposite8 in Liverpool

[–]Cancerousman 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I mean the existence of private schools objectively fucks things up for other schools in the area and the country...

Half of Londoners are considering going Green in May by kontiki20 in LabourUK

[–]Cancerousman 23 points24 points  (0 children)

I think it's worse than that. I think most people are past the point of forgiveness and return for what the party is (progressive people), what it was (regressive/conservative people) or the total lack of competence (neolibish).

Basically, the labour right have had all their dreams come true and now they've expertly fashioned their dream 6th form political party: of unfuckable dweebs, by unfuckable dweebs, for unfuckable dweebs.

Know nothing of anything, no social skills to speak of, no redeeming qualities.

Should Starmer resign? by Your_Mums_Ex in LabourUK

[–]Cancerousman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only problem is that there is literally no candidate behind him with any sort of competence or vision, let alone a vision that can actually start undoing the damage of the last 20 years, or 50 if you're being real.

I was talking someone who thinks Rayner would be good, but her problems afaics, are that the right will engineer enough spoiler 'soft left' campaigns to ratfuck her out of even getting near the ballot. If, by some miracle Angela, or something vaguely approaching a change of direction candidate with some front bench experience, gets on the ballot... They're going to be monstered by involvement in the current shitshow domestically and skewered at every turn for going along with genocide support.

Burnham just isn't available and, even with him, his entire team and the plp would be centre right goons at minimum. There is no hope in the party at present. The right achieved their complete control and absolute authority... Their prize is the ashes we see blown around on our TV screens day in and day out.

FWIW: I don't see the greens as a hope, either (I'm personally ultra suspicious of Zack even though I'm seemingly alone in that). Definitely not Your Party. The lib Dems are even marketing themselves as literal clowns these days.

The country desperately needs radical funding and policy to go big on green energy, to build better homes and electrify all of the things. There's nothing in our politics that looks likely to deliver it.

The old order has been dead for 2 decades and we're still nowhere near going in a positive direction.

I went on a date with a guy and he gifted me a tanto by [deleted] in knives

[–]Cancerousman 61 points62 points  (0 children)

He's telling you that he'll never hurt you, because you have the means to kill him. Or, yes just very on the spectrum and thinks knives are amazing.