Politics

[HookMeUpII]

I think if we distill down all these phenomenons, the real issue at the core is feminism has created an ever growing divide between men and women in the younger age demographics.

Men always have been judged by their pasts. This is an important lag indicator of trajectory. Men in the courting age demographic had to live a pristine life as far as decision making goes because their good decision making compounds, ultimately creating a man of means that is "desirable".

Women used to be very judgmental related to one another on "their pasts" because they knew you can never unring the bell. Women of the marrying age have mismanaged their life choices and are expecting that men must leave it in the past. That could be promiscuity, horrible student loan decisions, terrible career choices, porn and adult content, saying really horrific things on social media, inappropriate attire/photos, piercings, tattoos, and illegitimate children.

This creates the epicenter of the crisis because men are only suitable when they have made excellent decisions that increase their sexual marketplace value: career, good job, business network, participation in church/temple/civics, eradication of debt, work ethic, prudent use of student loans, etc.

The supermajority of women will wisely judge single men by their past as it informs their future, whereas women do not expect there to be equal consequences for bad historic decision making and a value judgment in their direction.

I am so happy my generation did not have these problems and I'm nearing 20 years of marital bliss. I'm deeply concerned about what I'm seeing in the younger generations and what that means for society.

Well, a lot of it is we've given a venue for that sort of thing. Social media. Women have become more "empowered", and not in a good way, through it.

I was in my mid/late 20's when social media was just ramping up. We had MySpace and Facebook. You would have women posting classier, but still attractive, content online. These were real women, in the sense, not influencers. Just young, attractive women, sharing their social life online. Granted, with only the best selected photos. Sometimes the convo would start directly there. Most of the time, it came through circles of friends. You would realize they were in a circle of friends and make it a point to be in that circle.

Now? Women can cast a huge net out there with racy, classless, photos of them scantily clad in suggestive attire, swimwear, etc. They get thousands of "bites" in a day, select who they want, and go from there. As time has gone on, society deems it acceptable. Enough people do it...it surely must be "OK" to do so, right?

Now it's the norm for women to post pictures of themselves in miniscule swimwear, very racy evening wear, and so on. It started as a groundswell and has become a tsunami, of sorts.

Then the goal shifts from trying to find the most suitable male in terms of looks, personality, kindness, values, morals, ethics, etc. to: Who has the most money and can provide for me the best. Then they turn around and post their lavish vacations on social media, luxury watches, jewelry, bags, cars, and similar material possessions. This is now "social status."

The white picket fence, Labrador retriever, stable job, loving family, and nice hospitable home have gone by the wayside.

Your point about the past is not wrong, it's become a nonfactor. It's mostly a nonfactor because social media has placed a higher value on outward appearance and shifted away from intrinsic and personal values.

I started the book "The Anxious Generation" but put it down in lieu of another book ("PT-105"). I'll come back to it. From what I've read so far, it hits this problem right on the nose. The scariest statistic I read recently is that the loneliest demographic in the USA is white males from the age of like 20-30. I might be slightly off on the age, but that's a true stat.

 

[mdwest]

yeah, murkowski is an embarrassment for the GOP. the ranked choice voting has helped her. she is a democrat mostly, am obviously not a fan. her daddy did her a big favor appointing her and now it has been terrible trying to get her out of office.

My fear is while she isnt a spring chicken anymore.. shes only 68... my guess is she, like Pelosi and others will try to stay in office until her dying day.. We may well have another 10-15 years of having to deal with her if Alaska wont oust her earlier..

 

[steve white]

Not sure if anyone on the politics thread has an interest in ancient history (or alternate history) but two rather amazing findings have come about in recent years that are turning history on its head.

Early civilization has always been of interest to me because I found conventional archeologies accounts to be rather dubious. Specifically, I hate the conventional explanation for the notion that Egypt's earliest pyramids are the very best ever constructed, everything got worse thereafter even though made by the same culture, AND the Clovis-First hypothesis that says they got here first and in successive waves of genius and imbecile, the Americas cultures were founded by primitive savages and absolute geniuses during similar timelines.

Much of the conventional support for Egypt's origins about 4500 years ago is based on the notion of there being no earlier megalithic civilizations. Mainstream archaeology has found an incredible site in Turkey called Gobleki Tepi that has turned history on its head. Mainstream archaeology thinks its at least 11,000 years old, either extending the potential age of Egypt or at least showing a preceding ancient civilization. Either way, really interesting.

More recently, the Clovis-first hypothesis as the first settlers of the Americas got its ass handed to it by an incredible find of ancient footprints found at White Sands Missile Base in New Mexico. Mainstream archeology now says these footprints are at least 23,000 years old.

Ancient history is getting rewritten and its very cool. It's political as far as the gatekeepers of conventional history are having to rethink their consensus.

Then you might like the book, "Pharaohs and Kings" by David Rohl. I think it is a much more accurate Egyptian chronology than the one currently endorsed...

 

[spike.t]

sadly, not a surprise in any way..

I dont think anyone believed Iran would give up pursuit of nukes.. as long as the current regime is still in power, they will continue down the same path they have been on since 1979... its worked great for them... why change?

we (the western world) really have one of two choices to make.. .

Commitment to full scale war to include ground forces, that topple the regime, cripples their military permanently, and then occupation until a new government is in place that we believe is more in line with western values.. (which we all know isnt going to happen, and isnt what any major western power is really interested in doing)...

or...

About once every 10 years hammer the shit out of them (take out nuke facilities, take out key nuclear personnel, crush their economy, force them to re-invest, re-build, etc..etc.)... knowing youre going to have to do it again 10 years later.. and be committed to doing that for as long as it takes for the Iranian people to figure out a way to topple the regime themselves (assuming thats something they actually want to do)..

Yup....not surprised at all....and never believed that all their nuclear facilities had been totally wiped out either....

 

[Brent in Az]

As far as Murkowski goes, there is a similar problem child on the opposite end of the country, known as Susan Collins.

 

[RLD]

Well, a lot of it is we've given a venue for that sort of thing. Social media. Women have become more "empowered", and not in a good way, through it.

I was in my mid/late 20's when social media was just ramping up. We had MySpace and Facebook. You would have women posting classier, but still attractive, content online. These were real women, in the sense, not influencers. Just young, attractive women, sharing their social life online. Granted, with only the best selected photos. Sometimes the convo would start directly there. Most of the time, it came through circles of friends. You would realize they were in a circle of friends and make it a point to be in that circle.

Now? Women can cast a huge net out there with racy, classless, photos of them scantily clad in suggestive attire, swimwear, etc. They get thousands of "bites" in a day, select who they want, and go from there. As time has gone on, society deems it acceptable. Enough people do it...it surely must be "OK" to do so, right?

Now it's the norm for women to post pictures of themselves in miniscule swimwear, very racy evening wear, and so on. It started as a groundswell and has become a tsunami, of sorts.

Then the goal shifts from trying to find the most suitable male in terms of looks, personality, kindness, values, morals, ethics, etc. to: Who has the most money and can provide for me the best. Then they turn around and post their lavish vacations on social media, luxury watches, jewelry, bags, cars, and similar material possessions. This is now "social status."

The white picket fence, Labrador retriever, stable job, loving family, and nice hospitable home have gone by the wayside.

Your point about the past is not wrong, it's become a nonfactor. It's mostly a nonfactor because social media has placed a higher value on outward appearance and shifted away from intrinsic and personal values.

I started the book "The Anxious Generation" but put it down in lieu of another book ("PT-105"). I'll come back to it. From what I've read so far, it hits this problem right on the nose. The scariest statistic I read recently is that the loneliest demographic in the USA is white males from the age of like 20-30. I might be slightly off on the age, but that's a true stat.

One has to be cautious estimating the power of social media and who really cares about it. There has been some really good work done showing that people on social media are not remotely reflective of the general population and tend to show some way more extremist ideas and behaviours than society in general.

 

[RLD]

Even as a centrist, living tree jurist, sympathetic to climate issues, all I can say is that nothing good will come of this decision:

UN top court

 

[Ontario Hunter]

RFK Jr. wants everyone to use wearables. What are the benefits, risks?

HHS Secretary RFK Jr. said he wants to encourage all Americans to use wearables to track health metrics. What are the benefits and drawbacks?

abcnews.go.com

Ok, this is just too creepy.

I think data breech of info recorded by those health watches could be beneficial. I have absolutely no problem with health insurance companies charging obese people higher premiums. They're a higher risk of health breaking down. Likewise, I wouldn't have a problem GIVING the insurance company access to my data to prove I am healthy and trying to take care of myself through healthy lifestyle. Then they can reduce my premium. Well, theoretically. . I do not like paying my tax dollars/insurance premiums to take care of people who don't make an effort to care for themselves.

 

[HookMeUpII]

One has to be cautious estimating the power of social media and who really cares about it. There has been some really good work done showing that people on social media are not remotely reflective of the general population and tend to show some way more extremist ideas and behaviours than society in general.

You'd have a hard time making the argument that the general demographic of 18-30 year old adults, in developed countries, don't care about social media. I am not saying that's a good thing, just the reality. To what extent its influential, it varies. Most in that age range, it has a pretty large role in their lives.

As a new parent, I wonder what this will all look like when my kids hit 10-12.

For right now, it's a losing battle.

 

[John Wasmuth]

Man oh man Gabbard is full of fire today!!!

 

[RLD]

You'd have a hard time making the argument that the general demographic of 18-30 year old adults, in developed countries, don't care about social media. I am not saying that's a good thing, just the reality. To what extent its influential, it varies. Most in that age range, it has a pretty large role in their lives.

As a new parent, I wonder what this will all look like when my kids hit 10-12.

For right now, it's a losing battle.

You are right and I should have made my argument a bit clearer.

It's not that they are not interested in it, it is that they don't resemble it. For instance, when they track U.S. voting patterns among age groups and compare it to social media (particularly Twitter as it was then) the population votes very differently than you would expect them to if Twitter reflected the general population. There is lots of similar data for other social media platforms and influencers.

Maybe the better analogy is that social media is a lot like TV. Lots and lots of people would watch the most outrageous crap on TV, like Springer, or Knots Landing, or Hill Street Blues, or the Jeffersons or whatever you like (Murder She Wrote even) but very few people actually emulated what they saw on the screen. Millions upon millions watched Springer, but very few actually had group sex with their cousins or whatever the topic of the day was.

So while there is hyper-sexuality and orthorexia (for instance) all over social media, very few people live that way or imitate those lifestyle choices. Perhaps the most obvious example is fitness/fashion influencers. They are all ripped, cut, low body-fat, big muscles and well dressed, while the United States is seeing a growing obesity epidemic.

I hope that makes more sense.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

You are right and I should have made my argument a bit clearer.

It's not that they are not interested in it, it is that they don't resemble it. For instance, when they track U.S. voting patterns among age groups and compare it to social media (particularly Twitter as it was then) the population votes very differently than you would expect them to if Twitter reflected the general population. There is lots of similar data for other social media platforms and influencers.

Maybe the better analogy is that social media is a lot like TV. Lots and lots of people would watch the most outrageous crap on TV, like Springer, or Knots Landing, or Hill Street Blues, or the Jeffersons or whatever you like (Murder She Wrote even) but very few people actually emulated what they saw on the screen. Millions upon millions watched Springer, but very few actually had group sex with their cousins or whatever the topic of the day was.

So while there is hyper-sexuality and orthorexia (for instance) all over social media, very few people live that way or imitate those lifestyle choices. Perhaps the most obvious example is fitness/fashion influencers. They are all ripped, cut, low body-fat, big muscles and well dressed, while the United States is seeing a growing obesity epidemic.

I hope that makes more sense.

Dammit, I missed Springer's cousins' orgy episode. Is it on YouTube?

 

[HookMeUpII]

You are right and I should have made my argument a bit clearer.

It's not that they are not interested in it, it is that they don't resemble it. For instance, when they track U.S. voting patterns among age groups and compare it to social media (particularly Twitter as it was then) the population votes very differently than you would expect them to if Twitter reflected the general population. There is lots of similar data for other social media platforms and influencers.

Maybe the better analogy is that social media is a lot like TV. Lots and lots of people would watch the most outrageous crap on TV, like Springer, or Knots Landing, or Hill Street Blues, or the Jeffersons or whatever you like (Murder She Wrote even) but very few people actually emulated what they saw on the screen. Millions upon millions watched Springer, but very few actually had group sex with their cousins or whatever the topic of the day was.

So while there is hyper-sexuality and orthorexia (for instance) all over social media, very few people live that way or imitate those lifestyle choices. Perhaps the most obvious example is fitness/fashion influencers. They are all ripped, cut, low body-fat, big muscles and well dressed, while the United States is seeing a growing obesity epidemic.

I hope that makes more sense.

Politics, I agree. Let's put that to the side.

In terms of the hypersexuality, body dysmorphia, orthorexia...there is a HUGE influence. There are a lot of people who aspire to achieve what they feel is the norm on social media, maybe not many who will do what's needed to get there.

I don't talk about it much on here but I used to be a competitive bodybuilder, like very large. Back when I competed, it was a microcosm. Now? Everyone seems to have some knowledge as to who the main fitness influencers are. I can't name hardly any of them by name but hear them come up in passing. There is some good being achieved by this. People may eat better, exercise more, which is all good, honestly. Then there is the "LiverKing" trap (the only influencer I can recall by name) where people thought they could get big and ripped by eating liver, buying his absurdly expensive desiccated and pulverized organ supplements, and working out. Meanwhile...you can't possibly hope to achieve that physique without anabolic and androgenic steroids, human growth hormone, peptides, etc. Which, by the way, he was proved to have used and that's where his house of cards came tumbling down.

That applies for the wealth-image trap as well. People see their connections/friends/followers posting pictures of fancy watches, vacations, cars, etc. Meanwhile, they have tons of unsecured debt, barely make ends meet, and other problems.

 

[HookMeUpII]

Man oh man Gabbard is full of fire today!!!

What we all thought about what went on could be much more egregious than we all knew:

Putin kept claims Hillary Clinton had physical, ‘psycho-emotional’ problems under wraps because he thought she would win 2016 election: Gabbard

Russian intelligence obtained damaging information about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s health amid her 2016 presidential campaign.

nypost.com

 

[RLD]

Politics, I agree. Let's put that to the side.

In terms of the hypersexuality, body dysmorphia, orthorexia...there is a HUGE influence. There are a lot of people who aspire to achieve what they feel is the norm on social media, maybe not many who will do what's needed to get there.

I don't talk about it much on here but I used to be a competitive bodybuilder, like very large. Back when I competed, it was a microcosm. Now? Everyone seems to have some knowledge as to who the main fitness influencers are. I can't name hardly any of them by name but hear them come up in passing. There is some good being achieved by this. People may eat better, exercise more, which is all good, honestly. Then there is the "LiverKing" trap (the only influencer I can recall by name) where people thought they could get big and ripped by eating liver, buying his absurdly expensive desiccated and pulverized organ supplements, and working out. Meanwhile...you can't possibly hope to achieve that physique without anabolic and androgenic steroids, human growth hormone, peptides, etc. Which, by the way, he was proved to have used and that's where his house of cards came tumbling down.

That applies for the wealth-image trap as well. People see their connections/friends/followers posting pictures of fancy watches, vacations, cars, etc. Meanwhile, they have tons of unsecured debt, barely make ends meet, and other problems.

I am not sure there has been much real change on the body building side. When I was young we all eagerly awaited the latest wisdom from "The Master Blaster" in Muscle and Fitness and there was a slew of bodybuilding magazines which have all gone out of business. And I don't think the number of people doing "The Wolverine Stack" now is much more than people who were taking pig fattener to bulk up back in the day. The world is getting obese and soft, far as I can see, not big and hard.

 

[Aaron N]

Man oh man Gabbard is full of fire today!!!

Just release everything they have on Epstein!!!!!

 

[HookMeUpII]

I am not sure there has been much real change on the body building side. When I was young we all eagerly awaited the latest wisdom from "The Master Blaster" in Muscle and Fitness and there was a slew of bodybuilding magazines which have all gone out of business. And I don't think the number of people doing "The Wolverine Stack" now is much more than people who were taking pig fattener to bulk up back in the day. The world is getting obese and soft, far as I can see, not big and hard.

It's an interesting argument but I disagree, in a friendly way. I think if you're a 20-30 year old now, who doesn't at least stay active and try to workout when you can, you aren't in the "cool crowd." The whole stigma associated with that is another argument, but lets leave that alone.

That's all driven by social media these days. Like I said, with that comes some good and bad. I think RFK Jr. is doing a lot of good things at the moment.

Also, the obesity term is a bit of a misnomer. I'm considered "obese" by height and weight. I'm 5'10" 200 lbs with a 34" waist.

 

[rookhawk]

Politics, I agree. Let's put that to the side.

In terms of the hypersexuality, body dysmorphia, orthorexia...there is a HUGE influence. There are a lot of people who aspire to achieve what they feel is the norm on social media, maybe not many who will do what's needed to get there.

I don't talk about it much on here but I used to be a competitive bodybuilder, like very large. Back when I competed, it was a microcosm. Now? Everyone seems to have some knowledge as to who the main fitness influencers are. I can't name hardly any of them by name but hear them come up in passing. There is some good being achieved by this. People may eat better, exercise more, which is all good, honestly. Then there is the "LiverKing" trap (the only influencer I can recall by name) where people thought they could get big and ripped by eating liver, buying his absurdly expensive desiccated and pulverized organ supplements, and working out. Meanwhile...you can't possibly hope to achieve that physique without anabolic and androgenic steroids, human growth hormone, peptides, etc. Which, by the way, he was proved to have used and that's where his house of cards came tumbling down.

That applies for the wealth-image trap as well. People see their connections/friends/followers posting pictures of fancy watches, vacations, cars, etc. Meanwhile, they have tons of unsecured debt, barely make ends meet, and other problems.

I'd add to this that most readers are men and we're applying masculine thinking to the feminine sex incorrectly. Men are pretty autonomous beings and independent thinkers, women are group thinkers. (pejoratively known as the "hive mind")

I was listening to a podcast recently where a psych-somethingist was running through the litany of "fad psychosis" that have afflicted women since the postwar era. It literally goes in waves.

-2nd wave feminism where women were convinced we were cock blocking any meaningful work.

-Anorexia was a really popular fad for women that came to maturity in the 80s.

-Bulemia and cutting ones self was a big fad in the 1990s...they don't do it anymore.

-In the 2000s branding versus tattoo was a self destructive fad of women.

-Since the 2010s, online sexwork via cam girls or OnlyFans has become the next hyper destructive female behavior.

-And since just shy of 2020 the latest fad was lesbianism and transgenderism in pre-pubescent females, an unbelievable shift in sexual identity crisis that literally took hold overnight in young girls seeking attention. Don't quote me on the stats, but it was orders of magnitude change like 1:30,000 young girls 15 years ago and 1:30 today or similarly absurd dichotomy.

In my WASPy Chicago suburb more than half the 5th grade girls came out together as Lesbian/Trans/Bi in the same year. That isn't suppressed sexuality, that is mass formation psychosis seeking to be special or to be within the "in-group" at the moment.

 

[Brent in Az]

 

[spike.t]

Even as a centrist, living tree jurist, sympathetic to climate issues, all I can say is that nothing good will come of this decision:

UN top court

Load of shit...countries need to walk away from that organisation....same as UK needs to get out from the European court of human rights