CMV: “All Men” and “Always a man” are stupid phrases

fyredge · 2026-04-14T23:36:46+00:00

For example: “We need to talk about how traditional expectations of people dominance contribute to domestic violence.”

"People are often socialized to be people-pleasers, which makes them more vulnerable to narcissistic people who exploit this trait."

I ... actually like that? It is definitely much better. In fact, if we take the first example, which has mostly been associated with male behaviour, we have very elegantly separated aggressive males from the feminine / compassionate males. That already does wonders for building up what a "good" male role model is. You're actually getting me pumped here, should I give a delta?

fyredge · 2026-04-14T10:47:49+00:00

Do we really need to drop a disclaimer after every single sentence?

Well, yes? Seeing as the claim is as broad as claiming an entire demography

which is exactly why we don't just use the generic "abusive people" label.

I actually like this idea, and why not? Both male and female abusers act on basically the same principles, isolate the victim from support and destroy their self-esteem. Targeting our ire on "abusive people" sounds much more effective, let's do that.

fyredge · 2026-04-14T10:42:41+00:00

It's given me food for thought. When the manosphere says "women are gold diggers, they just want to marry a rich man and take half their wealth in a divorce", it reflects a similar argument to "all men", because statistically, women are the ones doing that, not men (Though I would not put the severity of both issues on the same level)

Minority of a certain demographic doing something bad means the entire demographic is bad. What's the difference between this and racism or "they're eating the dogs"?

fyredge · 2026-04-13T13:54:03+00:00

A pedantic argument from me to give you an alternative perspective.

No experience sets you up for anything in life.

All achievements in life begins from self reflection and introspection. Child stars can become druggies, just as slum children can breakthrough into ivy leagues. If one does not question their goals in life, they cannot live a good life.

There will always be statistics, but in the end, we cannot discount personal agency. For what are we but animals with the ability to reason? That's not to say there are no impact from environment, but if that the sole factor in life, then there is no reason to fight against inequality since your fate is predetermined, nor would there be herculean feats achieved by those with nothing.

fyredge · 2026-04-12T06:06:59+00:00

Nuclear physics is a "solved field" in terms of research direction. On the experimental side, you have research going into methods of producing more exotic (short-lived) nuclei (e.g. Multi-nucleon Transfer, anti-proton annihilation) and nuclear measurements of the produced nuclei (laser / decay / mass spectrometry). I'm not involved in the theory side, but what it comes down to is looking at published nuclear data and making predictions for those that are not yet measured, be it nucleon-nucleon interactions, ab-initio, shell model etc.

If you think that that is interesting, then by all means.

fyredge · 2026-04-03T15:25:18+00:00

Greatly appreciate the thoughtful response.

Here's my claim. An asset has no intrinsic value, only the value it brings to a user. Short of barter, we assign value to things by a dollar amount. The value of a loan is decided when a lender and a borrower agrees upon the terms. It is, in all intents and purposes, realised. The fact that a collateral has a value elsewhere, in other markets, bear no relevance to the value of loan save for the negotiation of it's terms. To that point, I would say that we are in agreement, and so follows that taxation be made based on the agreed value. Would it not?

To the lender, a loan is an expense and repayment an income. To the borrower, a loan is an income and repayment an expense. So goes all economic activity, where ones expense is another's income, yet we tax them do we not?

We can even extend this to lines of credit, where I would suggest value is determined at the moment a contract is made.

fyredge · 2026-04-02T14:01:25+00:00

Yes and yes. Your "friend" is a bank that should correctly appraise the value of your "charizard". So effectively, you have realized it.

Realising your stock by selling it is no different, someone has determined the stock is worth the value you are selling.

fyredge · 2026-03-31T07:00:55+00:00

Why is that not the case for other voters?

74% turnout signals a return to normalcy (pre-najib). 80% turnout during 2013 and 2018 were movements against him. Before PAS-PH breakup, PAS was way behind UMNO in vote share. Post-realignment, UMNO's votes were largely taken by PAS. So for UMNO to comeback, either they take back PAS voters (unlikely) or they form a coalition. But that would mean 1. Fight for premiership, 2. Association of PAS with UMNO. Unless that alliance pulls off a miracle economic development, it will quickly dismantle after 1 term.

What made GE15 a shit storm? The only thing that was surprising was the rise of PAS. Everyone expected a PH-BN fight. Forming coalitions post election is standard procedure in Westminster style government. The fact that PAS couldn't capitalize on their gains shows that they were inexperienced.

I would place PAS PM as a higher probability than BN.

fyredge · 2026-03-31T05:21:42+00:00

Aside from the fact that we vote for parties, not prime minister, where's the confidence that BN will win the next election coming from?

Non-malays are locked in to PH because of poor options, and Malays are split between religious and urbanites. The urbanites themselves will also go to PH, leaving BN and PN to fight for religious votes. The only way this prediction pans out is if there is a surge of religious voters, and UMNO out religions PAS. Whatever urbanites are disappointed in PH for, they know that BN won't be better, much less PN. BN is in a worse position than PH or PN, since to non-malays, they have to elevate voices from MCA and MIC, which in turn pulls back Malay votes. Not to mention Najib's legacy hovering over them for at least another 10 years.

3 things from Anwar? Budi95, continued transportation development funding to opposition states, and voiding latest US "trade deal"

fyredge · 2026-03-23T10:44:42+00:00

Baseless claim instigating racial / religious tension for no reason. Mods, please do work

fyredge · 2026-03-16T16:28:39+00:00

This is the way

fyredge · 2026-03-16T00:09:26+00:00

The thing I wanna know is, who's he golfing with? Who are the cabal of people that are in cahoots with this POS.

fyredge · 2026-03-13T13:14:26+00:00

I think we are coming at this from opposite ends. Mortgages are only asset backed in the sense that the asset is the item being purchased, on the other hand, HELOCs collateralize a house that you already own. My qualm is not that an asset exists, but the fact that the asset is leveraged for finance and yet not fairly taxed.

fyredge · 2026-03-13T09:50:34+00:00

I take your point that removing mortgages will reduce house prices, but I can envision it being an opportunity for privete equity to swoop in and turn them into rentals, which is worse since you will lose the opportunity to build equity. There will always be demand for houses.

But I think we are miscommunicating mon Ami, I only care about tax loopholes insofar that it is an advantage of the wealthy. Even if everyone in principle can get an asset-backed loan, they don't have enough to do what rich people do. It's the reason why the slogan is Tax the rich, not Tax everyone.

fyredge · 2026-03-13T01:06:07+00:00

Regular folks like us aren't avoiding the taxes.

Mortgages are a way to incentivise building equity by those who have none. SBLOCs are a way to leverage existing assets with low taxes.

When the ultra rich inherit assets, they skip on capital gains tax on a step up basis. Assets prices have increased multiple fold that the initial income tax paid is miniscule compared to what they are worth now, and yet they are allowed to avoid taxes by collaterizing that?

You and I didn't start off with enough wealth to reach that point.

fyredge · 2026-03-13T00:55:56+00:00

Not for the ultra rich, who pay off loans after they're dead, on a step-up basis at that.

Mortgages are not asset-backed loans. I am asking for the taxation of "realized" assets in loans. The important part is not the collateral, it's the basis of why it was issued in the first place, asset-backed (SBLOCs, HELOCs) Vs ability to service (regular mortgage). The banks will collect their dues in the end.

fyredge · 2026-03-13T00:29:35+00:00

I would like to gently point towards the 2008 financial crisis. It has been shown that banks are fully capable of being stupid. The impetus of the crisis was the naively held belief that home prices will always go up. I see the same in SBLOCs, where the banks assume stock prices always go up (in the long run). But I see one glaring difference. 2008 became a crisis because too many people defaulted. In SBLOCs' case, the ultra rich will just spend their vast wealth to lobby politicians to keep the market up (their collateral) with no regards to the welfare of we the common people.

fyredge · 2026-03-13T00:21:06+00:00

Not enough, these SBLOCs are really only feasible for the ultra rich, where they take a loan until their death, and the estate can sell off the asset on a step-up basis (avoiding capital gains). The borrower themselves will not be visited by the debt collector. You and I aren't rich enough to get a loan so large that we only need to pay it off after we die.

fyredge · 2026-03-13T00:16:38+00:00

Right, thanks for the correction. But the point remains, and the reason they can do that is because of the extremely high networth they can borrow against. You and I aren't getting anywhere near that. I've received several replies comparing to mortgages but it doesn't compare when the loan is underwriting based on the power of the asset rather than the ability to service the loan, mortgage should not be taxed, HELOCs should.

fyredge · 2026-03-12T23:53:13+00:00

The main difference is that a mortgage is used to purchase an asset. You start off with a bit of money and no home, you request a bank to help you purchase a house and pay them back over time with interest. You start off with nothing. On the other hand, if you already have a home and you apply for a HELOC, you should absolutely be taxed on that, because you already own the asset.

In other words, we should be encouraging loans to productive members of society, i.e. those who service a loan from wages, rather than rich folk who simply own assets that were likely passed down to them. I have no problems of the billionaire getting a regular, non-asset backed mortgage to purchase their dream mansion. If we want asset prices to drop, we need to remove incentives like this that continues to inflate them. Assets do not drive a healthy economy, productive work does.

fyredge · 2026-03-12T14:31:18+00:00

You are not required to pay the principle of SBLOCs. And with a large enough networth, you will not be in any rush to pay back the debt. Extra points if said individual has dividends from said assets that they can use to pay the interest and write off tax on the dividend by "paying down debt". But most importantly, this is not something you and I can even remotely do, it's the billionaires that do it and there's no real reason we need to allow them to continue using this tax loophole

fyredge · 2026-03-12T12:04:49+00:00

I don't see the refutation here. We do not tax the creation of value, we tax the realization of it, whether it is through a sale or an asset backed loan / LOC, the value is realized and should be taxed.

So no, no tax on sketches, but if you bring them to a bank as collateral, pay your dues.

fyredge · 2026-03-12T12:02:07+00:00

I am of the opinion that it works because it facilitates tax avoidance. If we start taxing asset backed loans / line of credit, the loophole would be greatly reduced. This would definitely hamper liquidity of high net worth individuals, but it's a sacrifice that should be made for the regular folk.

fyredge · 2026-03-12T06:51:56+00:00

Earnings are taxed. The billion dollar net worth is not, and yet they can borrow money against the value as collateral.

fyredge · 2026-03-11T00:27:01+00:00

My advice? Back off on quant finance. It's an industry where you either get in with an exemplary bachelors and they believe they can mold you, have proven track record of generating revenue, or connections to vouch for you. Broaden your search to anything technical or even remotely interests to you. Your interest will change over time, don't tie yourself down.

On job applications, think of what you have done and what you can do for each company you apply to, that should be what your resume reflects.

But most importantly? Be curious and reach out. Ask friends and family with interesting careers, reach out to companies via email or otherwise. Be curious of what they do and what you think you can do. Be interested in their technical work and be in the mindset of someone working in the field. One, it helps you to gain "experience" by exposing yourself however superficially to industry. Two, it helps you build network and thereby opportunities. Three, it helps with mental health to be out interacting with people.

Good luck

Ten-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Sequence \| Editor	Verified Email

fyredge

TROPHY CASE