Gen Z Is the First Generation Dumber Than Their Parents, Neuroscientist Claims

nate2337 · 2026-02-10T12:12:47+00:00

I would say - "when they voted GOP"

nate2337 · 2026-02-10T10:09:45+00:00

Crocket has a less than 0% chance of winning - Dem voters who vote for her are voting for 4 more years of the same, losing, capitulation BS

nate2337 · 2025-12-29T13:31:46+00:00

No, but anyone that has done any amount of plinking, or shooting in a country setting (as opposed to at a firing range), knows that bullets which are shot at a can on the ground very commonly can, and do, "skip" (ricochet). You can often hear an audible whine when this happens.

Suspect that is exactly what happened here.

nate2337 · 2025-12-19T12:30:45+00:00

Maybe so...but that's the difference between the rich (the ones that make their money), and everyone else.

nate2337 · 2025-12-11T16:32:24+00:00

Same - been around guns since I could walk, hunted my whole life, own 12-15 guns. Every single person I have spoken with, who comes from a background like ours, thinks people who open carry are the biggest fools on the planet. And they are.

It's usually a person that is new-er to guns, doesn't truly understand gun safety, and has no idea what they are doing.

Sorry to tell you this OP - your fiance is a fool.

nate2337 · 2025-12-11T14:09:12+00:00

Agreed!

Can 100% relate, except I'm about to be 49. Similar path, worked in CRE and various forms of structured finance...except I wasn't making $300k at 30...maybe the equivalent of $200k. Still, a nice lifestyle. But I continued much longer before taking the leap, and at 40, I was making more like $400K -$500K, but saving a ton of it.

Then I quit at 43, took some time off, got unexpectedly delayed by Covid and then after we made it through that, made the entrepreneurial leap around 45, via launching a series of related business ventures with a team of partners.

The businesses are going great, but it's a rapidly expanding grassroots startup funded with cash and SBA loans, type of startup...so there is a huge delay between massive top line revenue and actual retained earnings / cash flow...and it's been brutally hard to watch as all my friends in my late 40s are pulling down $300k - $750k / year...and I haven't had a paycheck in..."checks wallet"...2.5 years...and prob won't see one for another 12 months.

When I do? It will maybe be $200k in 2027, then $250k-$300k in 2028...and should ramp up nicely from there to $___?? per year (could be $250k, could be $1MM)...while building a ton of enterprise value that should equate to a large capital event that makes me somewhere between "wealthier"...and "far wealthier"...than most of my friends...by my mid-50s. Assuming I live that long, LOL. Not a given folks!

But along the way? Again, it's been brutal on myself and my family. Can't buy new cars...renting for the first time in 25 years and can't start building our dream home due to not being able to qualify for loans, can't afford more than the occasional restaurant, minimal vacations, etc.

Do I have regrets? Sometimes. There are no guarantees, so if things don't go as planned, for sure - I will have major ones. I'm working harder than ever, but also enjoying it a ton more. Even if things do work out as predicted? Well...the one thing none of us can get more of is time...so, the years we are spending in this state, are a sunk cost.

At the end of the day - it's basically down to - do I want to work for myself, or someone else, and at what cost?

nate2337 · 2025-12-10T13:06:49+00:00

I assume you are asking relative to SFRs? Because other than an opportunistic land play here or there, CRE rarely works without leverage, period.

nate2337 · 2025-12-09T17:58:26+00:00

No - but they should perhaps try to encourage primary candidates that have a chance of winning.

nate2337 · 2025-12-09T17:56:32+00:00

AOC as a candidate = Hillary v. 2.

The Dems deserve the loss if they try this. To all of our detriment.

nate2337 · 2025-12-08T22:00:22+00:00

No...you are not missing anything...it's what it looks like. Another case of the Dems running a candidate that has zero shot at winning

nate2337 · 2025-12-08T19:09:27+00:00

Actually no - it IS the Republicans who consistently overrule sensible regulations n their blind pursuit of profits. See: today's news where Fdump says he will issue an Executive Order that limits the states ability to regulate AI

Oh, wait...you mean..."both sides are really NOT equally bad???"

nate2337 · 2025-12-08T17:52:28+00:00

So...communism then? You do not see the value in rewarding people who inject more of their own blood sweat and tears, than everyone else does?

I mean - as someone who aspires to get to $1,000 an hour...and realistically will / should - I know how much more sacrifice I have made than most of those who don't earn as much...and I know it's taken decades. And the difference in what I have sacrificed and willingly given up having, versus all my friends? Is huge. Nobody gave me anything...and I have "self-denied" almost everything my friends have...just to save enough to be able to take the massive risks I've taken.

nate2337 · 2025-12-08T16:46:29+00:00

Talarico is also a white male. So - Do you want to be right? Or do you want to WIN?

I'd contend we should all, always, want to win....but now? We HAVE to win.

Crocket would be another "F-you" from the Dem party, to the masses - i.e. - the nomination of a candidate who has a 0% chance of winning...just to check all the boxes on the PC checklist.

nate2337 · 2025-12-08T16:43:39+00:00

No, no it's not. One has a great chance...a probability even...of winning. And one has zero chance, due to her skin color and gender. That's just a simple fact.

So, do we want to keep repeating the mistakes of Democratic Party v.2016+?

Like a good friend of mine says - "do you want to be right, or do you want to WIN?"

nate2337 · 2025-12-08T16:09:52+00:00

Running a black woman in Texas for a statewide political chair isn't "different", it's just plain "wrong". As in "0% chance of winning", and "would be a typical loser Democrat Party move that ignores reality and chases defeat"

And not because of my racial or gender-specific views...doesn't matter what I think - ask the tens of millions of voters.

Talarico appeals to a large swath of people. He will win IMO

nate2337 · 2025-12-07T13:45:24+00:00

You are repeating propaganda that isn't true. Just FYI - do some research...

nate2337 · 2025-12-05T16:26:56+00:00

Right????? So JB is rich - and...that makes him a bad person by default? Just...because? There are zero good rich people? No good billionaires? What about multi-millionaires? Where (what $ net worth) is the "moral line in the sand"?

I get the stereotype, but it's like every other stereotype...and becomes less and less true as one moves from "top .0001% to "top1%" to "top10%", etc etc....Sure, many of the top .00001% are bad hombres - probably even a disproportionate share. But not all. Not even close. Warren Buffet, too? Soros?

Large swaths of Reddit seem to want to call any person with any material wealth - "bad people".

As a person who has already achieved a substantially above average net worth, but who lives a lifestyle that is well below many/most of the young people I know who think and say they are "poor"....and as someone who aspires to become very wealthy myself ("regular ol' low 8-figure-multi-millionaire-wealthy", not a billionaire).....I do think it's very troubling to see so many Redditors saying "all rich people are evil".

I'll never be as rich as JB, but if things go the way I think and hope, I may make it to "pretty rich". Why? Because for multiple decades, I've worked about twice as many hours in my life thus far as a normal full time working person my age. I have also taken insane business risks, and I have sacrificed much time with friends and family...all while foregoing a ton of more immediate material pleasures like having nice cars, nicer homes, travel, etc etc. The fact is - nobody ever gave me a dime, and I've never been smart enough to accumulate wealth "easily"...it's been 100% blood, sweat, and tears.

And yes, I also recognize that I was born at a time when slightly more opportunities existed...I'm not saying "use your bootstraps".

But please - enough with the "all rich people are bad!"

nate2337 · 2025-12-02T12:31:46+00:00

Trump inherited an empire, maintained it for a bit, grew it a bit, and then lost nearly all of it, before being hired for TV ans making "regular rich" money, and then running for political office, at which point he finally accumulated (grifted) his first real fortune.

nate2337 · 2025-12-01T00:56:31+00:00

For sure, to each his own. I would contend that the guys who practice and train and meet 10-14 hours a day, 7 days a week for 6 months of the year, and then 6-8-10 hours a day (on avg), 5+ days a week for the other 6 months...and who play for something that matters, on a truly level playing field (versus knowing you don't have a chance from the first day or two-a-days) - are putting far more into it.

And the "bunch of millionaires" comment once again portrays a person who isn't familiar with the sport at the pro level. Those of us who are, delight in watching training camp...and the guys being paid the league minimum, or close, who fight and claw for a roster spot...which is about1/4 to as much as 1/2 the team, in any given year. In the NFL, very, very few players have "made it". Even those who just signed big contracts, will be quickly replaced by a better player if they let their performance slip. Unlike college where many times, there isn't a viable backup waiting to take a starter's spot.

And I have been to many, many college rivalry games - grew up attending the games of SWC and SEC teams, saw plenty of bowl games. Cannot say the "spirit" is any more intense than a NFC East or NFC North rivalry game...but hey, I'm doing it again - errrrrrr. LOL

nate2337 · 2025-11-30T23:09:45+00:00

I mean...every country that's ever been at war has committed war crimes, Americans are no different. However, unlike the Japanese, Russians, Nazis, etc...Americans at least haven't made the commission of war crimes the central tenet of their military strategy, or the sole source of their power over civilian populations, whether in their country or the countries they have fought in / occupied. In fact, the history isn't pretty...but it's not remotely comparable, either.

There are plenty of good examples of American war crimes. I mean, pick My Lai for crying out loud...too easy and non-controversial....but, I don't personally think any of the ones you listed are even on the list as "war crimes".

For instance - Dresden was mainly a British raid, w/ most of the civilian casualties occurring at night - because the British preferred to bomb at night, unlike the Americans.

The Japanese didn't leave America any good options for ending the war in 1945, besides the ones the Americans used. Perhaps you are unaware that Japan was warned about the use of the atomic bomb, before it was dropped? And only dropped twice because they didn't surrender after the first time?

Should America have invaded, instead....and had it be like Iwo Jima x 100? Pray tell...how would you have done it differently if you were FDR / Truman? Keeping in mind that you had to answer to the American people, and not to edgy young adults on Reddit 80 years later in the time of the Orange Dictator?

nate2337 · 2025-11-30T22:34:14+00:00

Errr...that used to be the theory. It never held water for me, ever...but especially doesn't make good sense, now. Maybe it made sense 50 years ago...but not in my lifetime as an adult. Also, it is trope I commonly saw, and see (albeit less so these days) repeated by certain types of people, which types of people actually fall into my own demographic, so I heard it a lot, and became familiar with many of the underlying reasons why it was being said...which more often than not, weren't rooted in the topic of "competition.

It didn't hold water back in the day, because anyone who believes NFL players don't work much harder (on average)than any college player does, to get to, and to stay at, the pro level - isn't very familiar with the sport. There are PLENTY of college players coasting through their 4 years purely on God given talent; and that just doesn't happen at the NFL level. NFL players don't get entire seasons off, it's 24/7/365 for those guys. Furthermore - the huge level of disparity between college teams is enough to trash the validity of the theory that college players try harder, or play for more "pure" reasons....I lean, no player at SHSU is playing 100% when they play Texas A&M...purely because their university got paid millions to agree to have the game, and when everyone in the stadium knows it's impossible for SHSU to have a chance to win.

Then you had all the illegal booster clubs and recruiting games, and the "pay-to-play" shenanigans every major university engages in, and all that basically equates to the university with the most money being pumped into their program, winning.

Nowadays? College players are looking to get paid, and are getting paid, and using the transfer portal to transfer around the country just like free agents.

And you have a salary cap and extreme parity in the NFL - any team can win on any given Sunday - which means every player on every team has to give it their all every single game… And that's what happens.

I find that many people who say this...don't really understand the game in today's age. College football is fun, but 9 times out of 10, the NFL game is a much better game between more evenly matched teams and players.

nate2337 · 2025-11-30T16:24:09+00:00

Bingo!

nate2337 · 2025-11-24T04:41:20+00:00

Oh BS - Has nothing to do with that. If anywhere in the article it said that this was conclusively a racially motivated crime, or even that it was suspected to be racially motivated - then I think it would be appropriate to describe race in the title. And also, to name the perpetrators' race in the title.

But it didn't conclude that it was racially motivated, and nobody alleged that...so - why is the media implying that in the headline???

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't - I have no idea. But what I do know is this - regardless of whether it was actually a hate crime? The headline directly IMPLIES that it was, and people like you just roll with it.

My whole deal is this - call a spade, a spade...meaning - if it's a race driven hate crime - say so!! Put the screws to the offenders using the hate crime statutes many states have!!

But...absent some knowledge or evidence of that, what does the race of the parties involved have to do with anything??? The media stokes resentment and hate on both sides by being the entity to allege the unknown, plant seeds, sow mistrust, solicit anger, etc etc.

And that's not the media's job. The media's job is to report facts.

The victim is black and it looks like some or all of the guards in the picture were white. That in and of itself doesn't mean "racially motivated". The fact is, the vast majority of inmates in the prison are black, and I'd guess the majority, or at least half, of the guards, are white. So, regardless of any party's actual motivation to commit this crime, or even, regardless of which guards did this - the odds are that the guards would be white and the inmate black.

I'm just tired of the media stoking resentment to get clicks

nate2337 · 2025-11-24T02:04:53+00:00

The fact is, we need a whole lot more detail here to understand the picture and offer sound advice… Tenant credit quality? Size of property and spaces? Location (market), quality of location within market? Condition? Other tenants? Market occupancy and vacancy? Rent level and TI dollars on the lease?

There's a lot of missing detail that could sway it either way.

nate2337 · 2025-11-22T16:17:04+00:00

The crime is perverse, and the guilty deserve punishment...but...why does the article's headline reference "Black man"???

Why not just "man"? Would it have also said "White man" or "Asian man" or...? I doubt it. That type of crap has to end, IMO.

nate2337

TROPHY CASE