Same Ada.

I’d rather see nothing than the slop the algorithm keeps plastering across my screen. (Though I do like the topic buttons at the top.)

I like it.

At least here in the US, every election, 99% of voters choose Democrat or Republican and just ignore the last 40 years of these politicians chipping away at our economic and social liberty, and the people who do that have to convince themselves somehow that they made a good choice.

Most justify it by gaslighting themselves into believing their guy isn’t as bad as the other guy, but it just never crosses their minds that APAB because they don’t want to think they’re the bastards for empowering these people.

It’s also already gone through everything happening right now.

L-I-V-I-N

God, no.

I love my peace and wouldn’t trade it for anyone.

I hope you have fun with it. :)

Yeah, I had to put it down.

The gameplay was ultimately just too annoying to me, which is a bummer because the ideas and aesthetic were exceedingly cool.

I hope this bitch never manages to procreate.

Did they fix the janky dodging and rolling though?

Time to sow the royal oats, no doubt.

It depends on what you want.

If all you’re looking for is casual sex, they’re pretty great. If you’re looking for love, you’d do well to search for it in a more organic way.

Lots of social engineering incoming, no doubt.

You’re right.

Also, add the word ‘faith’ to that list.

Sadly, yes.

It worked really well for Dubya and Obama, and in Trump’s first term. I vividly remember Fareed Zakaria gushing over Trump after he ordered the MOAB dropped on Afghanistan. Americans fucking love war.

Correlating education to wealth is fine overall but you are intentionally avoiding more direct metrics of wealth and inequality to make it seem as if this is direct causation for women having some upper hand.

No. I’m illustrating that the machinery of government can and has elevated women and minorities in measurable ways.

Women absolutely make less and hold a significantly smaller portion of the overall wealth in this country.

What I’ve suggested above would benefit them as much as men.

Women routinely have to leave their careers to manage the home and their family (due to archaic misogynistic gender roles). There is also just straight up bias in management decisions about pay.

Sometimes yes, hence why there needs to be more regulation, as I’ve suggested.

Your inference that I’m blaming women is projection. What I’m doing is essentially advocating for DEI, but income-based and not based on any one demographic with the dual goals of lessening poverty and improving the overall functionality of society. (So we don’t have entire generations of people being radicalized.)

Thank you for reading it.

There are two factors here in the US that correlate significantly with a person’s lifetime earnings potential: their zip code of birth and attainment of a college degree. It’s exceedingly significant (in a positive way) that women constitute the majority in college enrollment. I think that’s a good thing, but it also demonstrates inequality.

I want to see policies here that mirror those in more progressive European countries: Free college, a federally-mandated living wage that adjusts with inflation, and universal health care. I also want to see universities’ federal funding tied to expansion of enrollment rates, as there are many that keep them artificially low and yet still raise tuition rates every year. These benefits should target low-income communities without regard to race or gender.

In short, I want to see the economic ship lifted for the poor, and that’s how it should be done.

Most young people, and in particular young men, have three choices when entering adulthood: Work for sub-standard wages and struggle alone and/or live with their parents, join the military, or take on permanent debt on the hope of a college degree and an elevated life. (If they’re fortunate enough to land a spot in enrollment to begin with.)

Rampant misogyny has spread because people who consider themselves progressive have ignored these economic calamities and right-wingers have, conversely, highlighted those inequalities, created communities for young men, and gotten rich in the process. Currently the functional unemployment rate in the United States is 25%.

The solution, is creating an economy where prosperity is distributed among a more diverse population of people.

(But I suspect people will continue to vote Democrat and Republican and this conversation won’t matter much in the grand scheme of things.)

I think this person sees someone pointing out the problems facing young men and automatically thinks ‘incel’. It can be disorienting to see people who don’t hate women advocating for young men.

Respectfully, your hostile and reactionary tone demonstrated quite well that you had no intention of discussing things in a rational manner. You toss around terms like ‘redpill’ like they’re Halloween candy, and it demonstrates that even having the discussion is enough to set off your temper. I even gave you an example of the imbalance in economic opportunity favoring women and minorities, and you just ignored it.

And that’s fine.

Be angry, but the least you could do is try to be productive.

The problem is the systemic impoverishment of young men is the root cause of all this, and that is what needs to be fixed if you want to fix misogyny.

I’d suggest you read the entire thread.