US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8691

On September 09 2017 00:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Hopefully he sees jail but I doubt it.

On September 09 2017 00:23 farvacola wrote:
Yeah except their definition of "corrupt" oftentimes includes folks popular and outspoken enough to do harm to the edifice of the Republic.

On September 08 2017 18:59 Kickboxer wrote:
Sorry for bringing this back, and I'm not gonna dwell on it either, just wanted to answer a couple of points since I went out last night.



I find much of what we have come to think of as "stereotypes" is in fact better understood as "archetypes". Yes, gender roles are somewhat fluid, but to a far lesser degree than we've come to believe (based not on hard science either, but instead on purely theoretical fields like gender studies, which I'm personally certain to be as close to "fake science" as official academia has ever gotten - and this is not just my opinion. There's an academic war being waged right now between clinical / evolutionary psychologists and the genderbenders as we speak).

If you want a relationship between a man and a woman to be stable long-term, firstly, it's absolutely not "fun and games". Committed relationships take sacrifice and investment on both partners' end, in addition to certain specific personal traits, and are largely incompatible with the libertine and egotistical way we've come to raise young people of both genders. I can observe that those couples who have it easiest in this difficult process (I keep over-generalizing things for the sake of arguments. Yes, there are many outliers and exceptions to all of this) generally feature a rather traditionally masculine man, and a rather traditionally feminine (indeed, to some degree this means submissive) woman. So perhaps these are not social stereotypes, but rather biological archetypes we ought, if not aspire to, at least treat with some respect. For a funky pop-culture reference, see Lenny Kravitz's "American Woman"

Just think about your grandparents. I'm willing to bet they fit those boxes, and there's a high chance they've spent their entire life together and your parents have had a relatively harmonious and safe two-parental home to be raised in - a paramount privilege in life, and one we should strive to preserve as a society. Whether or not they were "happy" throughout this stretch is besides the point. Happiness is a relatively childish and vastly overrated existential category (certainly, chasing happiness, especially the capitalist-driven social-media-ego 'feelgood' happiness of our age hardly works for anyone, and is one of the major factors of depression and anxiety). What matters is whether they led a fulfilling family life and created a tightly knit functioning micro-society with familial patterns that can reciprocate throughout time, which strikes me as one of the great "quests" in life whose realization brings profound lasting satisfaction, i.e. the real type of "happiness".




I'm not sure you are correct at all? Social constructivism as it applies to gender has been thoroughly disproven by now, and is absolutely dead in the water when it comes to hard science. Look up the Swedish studies on gender interests and inclinations, and how these express themselves once the societal factors have been equalized. They are very large, long-term, repeated and well cited studies that clearly show once you equalize the playing field, differences between men and women grow bigger rather than smaller, which can only be attributed to biological factors and flushes the entire social constructivist hypothesis down the toilet. Yes, I know 'gender studies' claim exactly the opposite is true, but the academic merits of this particular field are absolutely atrocious (non-repeateble "experiments", zero citations, idiot instruments such as "autoethnography", tremendous cherry-picking and distortion of facts, we can go on for a while).

Also, as far as I know, human females are extremely choosy partners compared to the "other" great apes? Chimpanzee and bonobo females will mate with any male that isn't physically prevented from boning them by the other males (talk about sex positive lol). In humans, the females pick their own mates selectively, based largely on their (perceived) socio-economic status, and this is posited to be the driver behind the entire competence hierarchy & arising competition among men.

Basically, female sexual selection is the primary motor of inter-male competition? We call this "hypergamy" - the propensity of human females to mate up and across dominance hierarchies, and the connected programming of men to want to climb those hierarchies in order to impress women. I know of no historical case where human females would leverage their promiscuity in any way? Can you name an example, apart from those few extremely exotic matriarchal societies where everyone parents children together?

On September 09 2017 00:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Fucking dumbass, 22 million people.

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/906155659120566272

On September 09 2017 00:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Fucking dumbass, 22 million people.

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/906155659120566272

On September 09 2017 00:55 KwarK wrote:

He's not wrong, he's just wrong to wait until a hurricane to say it. Florida should have been abandoned a long time ago.

On September 09 2017 00:56 Mohdoo wrote:


What? Should people not be evacuated..?