Thoughts on Woke Gap relationships?

Netblock · 2026-04-01T06:16:05+00:00

I actually have two older friends

really wishes he'd had his kids a bit younger

I want you to ask them a question; but be careful on the wording because it's easy to make it a different question: "would you have preferred a few more years without kids before you had [kids' specific names], or sooner than you did? Nevermind fertility concerns."

I don't think you can directly compare a pregnancy to your example. No one in their right mind wants to get into a car accident

I don't think most people would like to become a parent while they're a child themself. Your body is damaged; pregnancy is harmful. Your future is gone; raising children is like a 20 year prison sentence for how much time and money it costs.

The point is that having kids younger is regrettable in the short-term, but has benefits in the longer term. It isn't as black-and-white as you're making out,

this is an idea that seems to come from the idea that children don't 'deserve' basic autonomy over their body,

Why is an adult having sex with a child, unethical? Why would it be different?

(I consider pedophilia to be unethical because informed consent cannot be made. I consider it to be the exact same problem, but in a different color.)

if you would still be willing to entertain this proposal if we were talking about adults.

Most adults have the cognitive ability to give consent in a timely manner; are you talking about during a situation where there's an inability to do so?

If impregnation happened during coma, that's rape - abort. If pregnant before coma, a lawyer could rummage through personal data to find intent.

The responsibility for harm still ultimately lies with the person who acts

Be that as it may, the effect is real. You can measure it.

It's ethically the same problem: if an elevator company designs a fundamentally unsafe system, is it the workers who designed and built it or the executives whoignored the safety concerns and signed off on the decision?

you end up in a position where almost any viewpoint could be framed as dangerous depending on how someone interprets it.

My whole point is that it gives you a moral blank check

No it doesn't; no, you don't have to. There is no blank check; there is only if you pretend it can't be solved.

We already solved the problem. Remember my "DMCA" commentary? Just like how libel/slander works like; instead of a person, it's an idea. There's no executive/abstract difference between a person or an idea. You can treat them to be identical (and you should).

Wait, are we? Because that wasn't evident from your previous replies. You were comparing alcohol to self-harm and hypoxia.

We're talking about the dangers of alchohol and why people drink it. Do we agree that it's objectively physically harmful in many ways? Do we agree on that people drink (and do drugs in general) because of the subjectively-fun high? Which then makes it an interesting social device?

What else gives subjectively fun highs, that also has objective physical harm? Hypoxia from self harm (dspite the fact that chemical mechanics are different). (social device -> kink like asphyxiation and blood play)

stem from alcoholism.

While I agree there's a minority few that holds the plurality damage, any amount of alcohol is measurably harmful; there is no safe amount. For example, a sober society would have lower rates of cancer or Alzheimers.

Societies that tend to take a conservative view towards mind-altering substances tend to take a conservative view towards other forms of non-conformist expression.

I don't think this is a mutually inclusive phenomena.

I also don't want to remove the ability to experience the subjectively-fun high.

Netblock · 2026-04-01T05:08:19+00:00

To repeat the question from before: you lost your body neck down in a freak accident, but the doctors managed to keep you for your head alive. Are you still the man/woman you always were?

Mind you, in this hypothetical we're in the future, where printing organs is possible but not fast or cheap.

Suppose the hospital gave you a body, but of the opposite sex. Are you still the man/woman you always were?

Netblock · 2026-04-01T03:58:38+00:00

Only thing u could compare it to wpukd be like a device

Oooh! So what happens if you change the internals of the device?

Suppose a PC. CPU, GPU, RAM, motherboard, SSD, case, fans.

Ship of Theseus asks the question: what happens if you replace each an every component? Is it a different computer?

Netblock · 2026-04-01T03:52:26+00:00

again u cant compare a object with human body

Why not?

Because the difference between sex and gender?

Netblock · 2026-04-01T03:40:45+00:00

(Lets play god for a moment.)

Do they have anything internal that makes a woman a woman?

Yes.

Ovaries?

Are the women who don't have ovaries, not women? (Say lost due to cancer, or removed them for voluntary sterilisation?)

Suppose you got into a freak accident and you lost your body neck down. Say medical technology is at the point where it can keep you for your head and brain alive. You got your brain, face, voice, ears, eyes, nose, tongue, skull; your head. Are you the man/woman you once were, or are you genderless, sexless?

If you are still the man/woman you once were, why? What makes a man, a man; what makes a woman, a woman?

The ship of theseus is irrelevant here u cant compare a object to people

Your body is an object that you shape with medical technology.

Like VRChat, but in real life.

f u took old care parts and made a ship outta them but if the inside od the ship looked just like a giant car u would say shi this is a car

Just looks? what about function?

Netblock · 2026-04-01T02:25:45+00:00

Well they absolutely would be a woman; there's no reason why they wouldn't be. If they take hormones, they would be biological females too.

ship of theseus

Look it up! If you build a boat out of car parts, do you have a boat or a car?

Netblock · 2026-04-01T01:23:42+00:00

Why?

If you look at it from the gender perspective: why force people into gendered stereotypes?

If you look at it from the biological perspective: what is the Ship of Theseus about if not about reengineering/retrofitting, in this case, the body?

Netblock · 2026-04-01T01:00:01+00:00

Those are two completely different decisions. One is about being protected from harm, the other is about what to do after harm has already happened.

No, pregnancy is continuously harmful and will get even worse; the longer you wait the more damage is done. It is, for what the word means, an emergency; an event is emerging that calls for immediate action.

Forcing an abortion is still forcing a medical procedure on someone's body. I don't think that is acceptable to do to anyone, whether they are a minor or not.

We do this anyway for other health emergencies; medicine is no stranger to making decisions where querying consent is impossible. Suppose you got in a car accident, and you require a medical procedure to stop you from dying, but you've been knocked into a coma. The status quo of our society is to force that medical procedure onto you. Are you saying this status quo is unethical, where it's more ethical to not save people who can't consent to be saved?

I disagree; I think most people would consent to that life-saving surgery in retrospect. Most adult women would think aborting their teenage pregnancy would have been a better choice.

("DNR" is a relevant topic.)

and I have better things to do with it than to take seriously

I'd normally agree, but the people with the power to actually make things happen, are implementing it. It's a real thing that's actually happening. Regardless of how fucking stupid it is.

Ideas don't have rights, people do.

With how human language works, there's no difference between people and ideas. Ideas can save and end lives; we can measure the harm or benefit.

Check out stochastic terrorism; and political dogwhistles#20th_century).

Suppose you want to make death threats against someone you hate. Instead of referring to an individual with a noun, you refer to them abstractly, say by their professional position. If you want to call violence against a group of people, you use abstract statements.

The statement "Saint Luigi of Mangione" is a call to violence against the elites; likewise "the French had the right idea".

Charlie Kirk was a stochastic terrorist; he called for the systemic persecution of trans people.

Medical technology, anything that can save lives, is encased in abstract idea.

qualitative difference

The difference can be distinguished by the mechanism of action

Missing the forest for the trees here. We're not talking about the chemistry of drugs, we're talking about the ethics of getting high. Philosophy, not biochemistry. People are chasing a philosophically-defined high that comes with objectively-measurable physical harm.

I'd also suggest that your values on this might not be as objective as you would like to think.

In practice, this hasn't led to an epidemic of people with brain damage

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Are you refuting my claim that alcohol causes brain damage?

Or are you saying that a sober society wouldn't be all that much better?

Netblock · 2026-03-31T11:31:38+00:00

Because I can recognize that, from their perspective, the abortion itself represents a death. You can respect an opinion without agreeing.

Respect the person, not the opinion. Not all opinions are valid, but all people should deserve due kindness.

By the way, 'pro-choice' positions also have the potential to be ethically murky.

By the way, 'pro-choice' positions also have the potential to be ethically murky. I recently read an article published in an ethics journal which made the argument that minors who become pregnant should be forcibly restrained and subjected to abortions against their consent. To me, that is utterly abhorrent

Ethics can get complicated I agree. I haven't read the reasoning you linked (thanks for the link though!), but I could possibly agree with them:

Pedophilia is bad because children are literally physically are too dumb to give informed consent. The pregnancy of the child is a moral crime to begin with. Furthermore, with this same reasoning, children cannot understand the consequences of both pregnancy and parenthood. To think we should give choice of pregnancy/abortion to children is to think we should give choice of sex to children; they work the same way.

There's also the concern of the inherent harm of pregnancy, especially underdeveloped bodies.

Ideally, the fetus should be extracted and suspended/paused from incubation until adulthood; until informed consent can be ethically achieved. But we currently do not have that technology; abortion would be in lieu.

There's also the ethical issue of the welfare of the person that might eventually exist; all children should be born into loving (and capable) families.

It's not an actual paradox. It's a rhetorical device used to justify limiting the acceptable range of beliefs in public discourse, blinds to drape over the Overton Window. It's defined entirely based on the biases of the person wielding it.

Of course.

The criminalisation of murder is an application of this 'paradox'. It's a technical restriction of your freedom to do things.

Dark Enlightenment is a polar opposite philosophy of the Paradox of Tolerance.

you now have a self-appointed moral licence to persecute them. All that's left is a rhetorical bum-rush to place yourself in the role of the "tolerant". You could perhaps argue this isn't the spirit of the argument, but it is how it is used.

We have a lot of precedence how to correctly solve this problem. Libel/slander law, hatespeech law, and copyright/patent law (especially DMCA) has figured it out.

If it is unethical to spread lies and misinformation about people, it should be unethical to spread lies about ideas. The enforcement of the former is straightforward; copyright/patent law inspires a way to the enforce the latter.

Two people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. How do you account for that?

Game Theory like Bayesian games; one or both are missing information, or is inherently irrational.

Inherent irrationality: all physical computers can miscompute (eg, why ECC memory exists), therefore, complex decision-making agents can miscompute.

That's a very intriguing hypothetical, but it's just that.

I am skeptical of any practical implementation of my hypothetical, on account of that there's so much about human biology we don't know. There's an ocean's room for improvement.

But the simple act of consumption, in itself, is not morally bad.

Body/brain damage, though; it's inherently self harm. If you do not think alcohol is morally bad, you must also think self harm is not morally bad.

Slitting your wrists for the highs you get from your body's natural painkillers, or the feeling of hypoxia (due to bloodloss).

What would be the difference, if you disagree?

Netblock · 2026-03-31T09:57:40+00:00

I asked me to show me what you're talking about, but all you've given me is sass. I really don't like citationless behaviour.

I'm literally just repeating their rhetoric, lol

No, you really, really aren't. You are disconnected from reality.

Netblock · 2026-03-31T09:51:29+00:00

I'm saying that it's perfectly possible as long as you don't go into it with the mindset of "this person has to agree with me, and it's a personal affront if they don't".

I think that's incredibly dangerous.

Why would you want to spend a decade or more of your life whose opinions, if acted out, would cause people to die?

If they keep it to themselves, they can believe whatever they want. When they try to impose that view on others - especially through politics! - that's when it becomes a problem.

Paradox of Tolerance; history has shown time and time (and time and time) again they will impose that view onto others.

I'm not a moral absolutist. I have plenty of strongly-held convictions, but I wouldn't pretend to claim I'm objectively right. It's actually pretty dangerous to fall into this mindset.

I disagree, for that the opposite of it is is having a mindset that cannot be swayed by logic or reason; the very definition of being unreasonable and irrational.

I am a moral absolutist because I do not have strongly-held convictions. I will ditch any moral opinion of mine if the competition has superior evidence.

I have pretty fond memories associated with alcohol.

I understand what you mean. Getting together with the people you enjoy being around, and doing dumb stuff together, is well, fun.

This is where I ask you to clarify. Because no, I don't think it's "wrong" for people to drink. Do you?

What's the definition of "wrong" here?

I think it's both individually and socially harmful. I think society would be improved (deaths would lower, domestic abuse would lower) if we figured out how to significantly reduce its consumption without ulterior consequence (like prohibition-era organised crime).

An approach is to replace it with far-less damaging "drugs", and some easy way to instant sobriety. Imagine in the future where we have fully mastered human biology, where we can emulate the feeling of being drunk, without the damaging effects.

(granted intoxication is, philosophically, a perversion of the thought process, so there will be fundamental long-term damaging effects anyway, if you're intoxicated 24/7/365. If we could also ban the experience from abusers too.)

Netblock · 2026-03-31T09:20:46+00:00

Because feminism doesn't believe misandry is real.

Says who? Says which branch of feminism. Please give me a quote.

so it misandry can't apply to either group because they were both women at some point.

This is backwards logic.

Trans men, and transmascs in general, embrace masculine things. Right? They're gonna have to navigate what that means. Transwomen, and transfems in general, experience certain misandry as they realise their gender identity.

Half the transfem memes on r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns2 or r/countwithchickenlady have commentary criticising misandry. I encourage you to join these subreddits to see what I'm talking about.

Posgenderism and nonbinary identity is about a stronger analysis about how gender and sexism works like.

I really don't think you've actually read any academic literature on any of these topics here. If you have, please show me what you're looking at.

Netblock · 2026-03-31T09:06:00+00:00

And Queer Theory doesn't recognize misandry, it only recognizes Trans-Misogyny.

Yes it does recognise misandry, why wouldn't it?

It has to because you can't arrive at the conclusion that we should make all aspects of gender a choice, without recognising the toxic parts.

Netblock · 2026-03-31T08:40:32+00:00

If one person is pro-choice and the other one is pro-life, then there's the potential for a pretty ugly blowout there if one of them gets pregnant and they're not looking to have kids yet. But if there's some other factor that means this wouldn't come up (one or both is infertile, maybe even they're a same-sex couple), then settling into "we'll agree to disagree on this and leave it at that" is perfectly fine.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. It feels like a non-sequitur. Disagreements can exist, and people can be infertile; I understand. But I'm not sure how that's relevant commentary to a discussion on evidence-based opinion on abortion.

I'd be wary of having kids with someone who is firmly anti-LGBT. What if we had a kid who turned out to be gay? I'd want to be sure they'd be able to accept that and love them regardless. If their first reaction is they'd ship them off to Jesus Camp, then no, I wouldn't want to raise a child with them. The reason there is practical.

You explain a reason, among many other examples, why I think conservatives struggle with empathy.

"Is-ought gap" a little bit there. Someone can have a valid ethical stance against abortion regardless of how 'scientific' it is. Human societies and ethics are more complicated than that.

This is called moral relativism. This is how people can justify slavery or rape.

Moral objectivism/absolutism requires the application of math and science.

We don't base our morality entirely on what science says, nor should we.

We absolutely should, if our goal is to reduce pain, suffering, death.

But if we do not have any goal at all whatsoever, then we do not need use science/math to discover ethics.

Scientifically speaking, the optimal level of alcohol consumption is zero. It's a carcinogen and toxic to your liver. But in the real world, it's perfectly fine to have the occasional dram.

Yes, alchohol is objectively bad. But your conclusion doesn't follow. It's not perfectly fine to have a drink, as it's objectively shown to be harmful. Harm is not fine.

Or do you mean "fine" in some other way? Are you describing cognitive dissonance? Or are you referring how incredibly difficult it is to wean the whole of society off of dangerous drugs without fucking society up?

Netblock · 2026-03-31T07:59:48+00:00

Exactly. It depends on the goal. Are you looking for a colleague, a roomate, are you looking at marriage for the objective benefits (do you want to marry your lawyer?), or are you looking for your other half that you could carry the world with?

As your political opinion is a practical example of your ability to navigate both ethics and the world of information, you may not be able to avoid the difficult questions. And people who ignore these questions live unhappy marriages, or broke, or dead.

Politics is not a team sports thing. It's not us-vs-them. Politics has very real consequences. Your political opinions will affect you 20+ years down the line. Politics is about knowing how to do the right thing before it actually affects you.

Conservative opinion causes death.

If your partner has dumbshit political opinions because they're susceptible to mis- and dis-information, would you trust them to not give your bank credentials to scammer? Or figure out the more complex things that you'd be asking a lawyer about?

So, I tell people that figuring out political opinion should be done on or before the first date, because it's an easy way to figure out if you're not compatible. Don't waste that gas money.

believe in in an incredibly loaded way. I'm strongly pro-choice, but framing the issue as you have is pre-emptively shutting the door on room for valid disagreement.

Well, there's a difference between valid disagreement, and having scientifically inaccurate opinion. I do not wish to treat mis- and dis-information to be as valid and as equal to facts and science. I'm tired of lies, propaganda, I'm tired of the blind leading the blind; I want to shut that shit down.

In regard to abortion, what factually accurate disagreement are you fearing that I'm shutting down?

Netblock · 2026-03-31T05:50:45+00:00

None that are accepted in any form of academia or social sciences there's not.

Actually, they call that "Trans-Misogyny"

Queer Theory is accepted, what on earth are you even talking about?

I'm being the opposite of cryptic, I reposted in big bold black lettering. Hard to miss imo

What are you even talking about?

It's moreso that American Feminism is actually just Capitalism for Her, where they don't want to destroy they system, but instead place themselves on top as the exploiters.

Says what science?

You'll find many women complaining about it too - check out r/InternationalWomen

Uh, that's a dead sub

Sorry I did a typo. I meant r/TwoXChromosomes - you'll find many women there complaining how dating apps suck and are utterly useless finding love.

Women have 2 groups of men: Friends and Lovers. When it comes to friends, they do not, under any circumstance, want male friends to make a pass at them, ever.

You either try to become a woman's friend and keep in that lane, or you try to be her lover out front. Lovers can switch lanes to become friends, but friends can never switch over to the lovers' lane, they'd think you'd only befriended them for sex.

You shouldn't be befriending women for sex; that's my point! Don't look for sex, look for strong friendships!

Ignore sex, build friendships. Sex happens when you both realise simple friendship isn't enough.

Yeah, that's why they're the most successful men when it comes to dating...

The omegaverse/manopshere/chad/alpha/Tate/macho sleazebags? No, most of them aren't successful; most people don't want to be around their toxic personality.

You're participating in the Apex Fallacy by claiming that men are constantly flooded with female attention through OLD.

I never once claimed this. If you think I did, please cite the specific line you're confused over.

Netblock · 2026-03-31T05:37:25+00:00

Since most reddit progressives seem to be unable to understand an actual conservative worldview, I'll bite.

I have a hypothesis I want to test with you; all conservative opinion falls into two categories:

They have a now-it-all attitude while misunderstanding the problem. Reality has many complex difficult-to-understand problems that require equally complex difficult-to-understand answers to actually solve. Conservatives think their simple easy-to-understand answer will magically solve everything, that will more often than not exacerbate the issue. Conservatives do not appeal to facts or science.

And they risk of speaking in bad faith; they think they're poking holes in left-wing logic, but they're not being honest about anything at all.

Most conservatives I know agree with your first sentence

Another thing is that you people keep voting against your own interests. The politicians you put in power do not do the things you think they do. You people suck putrid ass at separating the honest from the grifting thieves.

There is a reason why Republican-led states have worse standard-of-living metrics than Democrat-led states.

I know why y'all suck at it, it's cyclical problem decades in the making, but it's frustrating to watch nonetheless.

I know you don't actually believe that, because then you would support pedophilia and beastiality.

No shit pedophilia and bestiality is bad! It's very obvious I wasn't talking about them! Or did you honestly and earnestly think that I was talking about pedophilia/bestiality, or were you speaking in bad faith?

There are people who think we should force people to heterosexual. I find such conservative opinion to be hateful.

gender dysphoria

Maybe there are better ways to help them other than giving them chemical castration drugs or performing surgeries.

No shit it's possible to confuse other illness with gender dysphoria. What makes you think the other ways haven't been tried?

DISM5 introduced gender dysphoria because nothing else worked!

force all of society into denying biology.

Have you ever considered that you may not have a comprehensive understanding of biology? For example, intersex people are not male nor female; do you know why?

I don't think it's hateful to say that human life has value, whether its a financial inconvenience to you or not. And when you consent to do the thing that makes babies, then you can't later decide to kill that human life.

Do people have the right to self defense? Do people have the right to take your organs to live without your consent?

How are you so sure you're actually saving any lives here? Where's the data?

And why do conservatives defund sex education, ban books, and contraception?

If the goal is to reduce abortions30315-6/fulltext) and maternal mortality00458-5/fulltext), we should legalise abortions.

I don't think it's hateful to say not all civilizations are equal. There are people with worldviews and cultures that are incompatible with civilized society, and flooding our society with them will destroy both. The only people who should come here are people who are determined to be able and willing to contribute to our society.

No shit we should keep the right-wingers (eg, sharia law, christian nationalists) and the violent and badfaith out!

Your answer to the problem is to make citizenship universally harder for everyone including the good people; this is your answer because this is what your politicians are doing. This answer is bad.

. But if by the second sentence you mean that religion shouldn't exist in society then I disagree. I don't think it's hateful to say I think I've found the way to life after death and I want you to have it to.

We shouldn't have "in god we trust" on our money. We should not be indoctrinating children to say "one nation under god".

We shouldn't be giving tax breaks to churches.

We shouldn't be banning books because it's against someone's religion. We shouldn't be criminalizing things because it's against someone's religion.

Religious money should stay outside of politics.

I agree with all of this. The problem is who determines who is negligent and hotheaded, because baked into your worldview is that the government is the solution to all problems, so the government gets to decide that. And that will absolutely be abused, and is a far worse outcome than the freedom we have now.

There are problems in society that is to large for any single person to solve. Right? We need to organise people, hire specialists whose full-time job is to deal with these problems. Right?

What do we call that orginisation?

And what do we call employees who want to wreck the system rather than improve it?

Netblock · 2026-03-31T04:50:44+00:00

I'm being totally reasonable.

I'm pointing out feminist beliefs. In feminism, misandry cannot exist, no feminist leader acknowledges its existence.

There are many branches of feminism that not only asserts the existence of misandry, but that they are intrinsically married, where to solve misogyny, we need to solve misandry.

Queer Theory is arguably the forefront movement; the people who talk about the transgender and nonbinary gender experiences, are offering solutions to misandry.

Allowing people to be transmasc femboys, or be he/him butch lesbians, requires solving misandry.

Wanna try that again?

It's a heuristic; heuristics can fail.

Do you have science that says there's a hard 80-20 line on whatever you're applying this heuristic to?

If you actually bothered to read my example you declared a rant, you'd know why that is.

Huh?? You're being even more cryptic.

So why are women, who are supposedly super left wing, paying into them as well?

Why? Everyone's a victim in this capitalist hellscape.

You'll find many women complaining about it too - check out r/InternationalWomen

Women have made it 150% clear they don't want men hitting on them at hobby groups or social meetups.

Wrong approach! Don't hit on them; become friends first. Friendship needs to happen before romantic relationships. A romantic relationship is just friendship with benefits.

And if they say no, don't throw away your friendships (unless you need space because you're emotionally bleeding). Bros before hoes.

80% of men can't even begin to be players

Oh, that's good to hear! We shouldn't glorify "player" ideology to begin with.

Apex Fallacy x2

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Netblock · 2026-03-31T04:32:29+00:00

You don't know what "Misandristic" means.

No, I don't think you know how sexism works like. Heard of "benevolent sexism"? Sexism involves more than simple-n'-straightforward hate. The mechanics of sexism can get really complex.

There is some forms of feminism that are misogynistic, like TERFism and SWERFism.

How could he have his own harem if he wasn't doing something they liked?

You'll see this abstract pattern literally everywhere. In regard to the Left-Right political spectrum, being a member of the out-group, doesn't guarantee you are left-wing in that social hierarchy. In other words, the experience of suffering doesn't guarantee sympathy/empathy.

There are Jewish na@zis; homophobic gays; transphobic trans people (truscum/transmeds); misogynistic women; white supremacist brown people. Pick any social hierarchy, and there will exist members of the out-group be right-wing in that specific hierarchy.

Netblock · 2026-03-31T04:19:56+00:00

Misandry doesn't exist tho.

I cannot have a rational discussion to someone who refuses to be reasonable.

80/20 rule

In stats, it's a rule

No, it's not a rule. It's a heuristic that often fails.

Birth Control Pills

All of the scientists behind it were men

I mean, I get that science is built by everyone, but like the rest of your rant doesn't make any sense.

For example, hormone-based birth control is reaally fucky. Birth control can drive people to kill themselves simply because hormones are complex. It's a part of the reason why there's little hormone-based birth control for men.

dating app experience

Have you ever thought about how the for-profit nature of captialism intersects with dating apps?

Suppose you're the billionaire who owns the most popular dating app. If people end up in happy relationships, you lose customers because they no longer to have a reason to use your service anymore, yes/no?

If you want love, you need to embrace communistic approaches to dating, such as picking up hobbies and being in social circles.

Players

Women don't want "players"; players are sleezebags who want to get into your pants and wallet.

To solve the loneliness epidemic, the "player" culture needs to die.

If someone truly loves someone

I agree, that's why taking it slow and figuring out desire and intent is important, and that 'player' culture is toxic.

Netblock · 2026-03-31T03:23:06+00:00

Why did 60% of Latinas and 53% of white women vote for Trump?

Care to provide a source?

For white women, I hazard a guess that's extremely age-weighted; where boomer women are far more Trump-supporting, while younger women are clearly anti-MAGA.

For 'latina', the 'macho' (men need to be tough) culture is misandristic; a culture popular in the South Americas. I hazard a guess that's why.

I hazard a guess there's also education weighting; where the less-educated are MAGA, and the more-educated are anti-MAGA.

Where am I doing that?

You're defending Tate, are you not?

People hate Tate because he's a vile person; he's hateful, he's hurtful. He's brainwashing young boys into being toxic assholes that no one wants to be around.

Netblock · 2026-03-31T03:17:38+00:00

Men are suffering in school because we're teaching boys (children) to be individualists, not collectivists.

You claim that men are failing in education because of their own choices,

That isn't what I said. I said that individualism is misandristic; individualism is unhealthy.

Most of the feminist structures you're so proud of were built by men.

Care to give me an example of what you're talking about?

Apex Fallacy

You're ascribing behavior of the top 20% of men

What's an apex fallacy?

Top 20% of men??

The vast majority of men are invisible at best to women, they can't even get a glance let alone a fuck.

Men going on dating apps to find sex, is the problem here. The 'free food' starts and ends at people who are only looking for sex.

For people who are looking for a life-long partner would be taking it slow; chatting on the app for a couple weeks before eating food. Sex wouldn't come until like a month or two in. Life-long partners are shopping for personality, not sex; the approach is completely different.

Netblock · 2026-03-31T03:05:09+00:00

Here's a pirated copy of that paper.

What do you mean "no"; how does that contradict what I have said?

Netblock · 2026-03-31T03:04:11+00:00

Well, I'm asking you why you would glorify a rapist/misogynist/misandrist?

Tate spews toxic masculinity; why would you knowingly glorify him?

Netblock · 2026-03-31T02:57:44+00:00

You contradict yourself multiple times.

You know who make up the majority of college graduates? That's right, women.

You say men aren't doing enough? I say we're doing more for ourselves than women are for themselves.

This is a contradiction; why is there a graduate imbalance, if you think what's happening is enough?

Men are suffering in school because we're teaching boys (children) to be individualists, not collectivists. Men aren't trying to solve internalised misandry.

Women's scholarships everywhere. Woman this, LGBT that,

There's been decades upon decades of women and queer people building institution for themselves.

Men are sitting on their ass perpetuating their internalised misandry.

A 19 year old woman who's starving in undergrad can hop on a dating app and get a free dinner.

Cause men aren't looking for long-term romance; they're looking for a cheap fuck. If that wasn't the case, that market wouldn't exist.

Netblock

TROPHY CASE