Yeah committing genocide on a people has been known to stop them from hating you and participating in asymmetric warfare against you.

Truly peak understanding of fundamental human group psychology.

Yeah, that’s true, but super fucked that women get the innocence of children and men are assumed to be not innocent in any situation.

Life is harsh when you’re a guy.

Yeah. I had a dad that didn’t get laid too. Sex is in the bottom layers of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, then intimacy is up higher as well. If you’re not getting these things you’re not going to be able to hide them. Your kids won’t know why until they’re much older WHY your not happy, but that is a sadness of the soul that nothing can hide.

You ever see one of your friends the day after they get laid and you just know. That’s a kind of joy from having your needs met that you can’t fake.

You’re teaching your kids it’s OK with someone who doesn’t meet your needs. It’s not.

Be with someone who makes you happy. Let your wife do the same. Show your kids what a happy marriage and happy parents look like so they can model their relationships that way. Don’t continue the cycle.

It’s better to show your kids what is like to be happy and have your needs met than to show them being miserable and setling. Especially on their behalf.

Which would you rather for your kids?

Which are you showing your kids by example?

Put that on billboards in swing districts. Can’t be sued for libel because he said it. Might get Republicans but to vote. Shows on the fence voters how dumb he is (although at this point…)

What country has a system where SOLDIERS IN THE MILITARY can’t be forced to invade another country?

Like it’s a nice ideal, but considering your idea is novel and radical maybe start with countries that aren’t at war.

Second of all, once you’re at war, you’re at war. There is no “just defend your territory” because that means there is no reason not to invade you and no loss scenario for your invader, the worst outcome they lose some soldiers and your borders are unaffected. Once you are attacked you have to seek every legal advantage (see the Geneva convention) to obtain victory and repel your attackers. On that basis I’m not even sure your idea is sound or reasonable in the first place for a defending country. And in this specific scenario it’s just helping Russia.

I’m marking you as a Russian troll just to see how often you’re on here defending Russia by “just asking questions” about the actions of Ukraine while not holding Russia to any standard at all .

Yeah, everyone knows that when white people do it they’re “expats”!

What evidence do you have that she’s intersex? No one anywhere has come forward to share test results that show she’s intersex or anything but cis female. Sure some Russian guy who got fired for corruption said it to a reporter ONE TIME after Imane beat a Russian boxer, but that’s literally all you got.

Based on nothing… You spent 20 severely downvoted comments to say “I don’t have any evidence but in my heart I feel like she’s not a real woman and shouldn’t be allowed to box at the Olympics”

I’m glad you’re not in charge of anything, fuck, this shit’s wild!

Kanye West, the disgraced former shoe salesman and dinner companion of Holocaust-denier Nick Fuentes

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2023/01/kanye-west-reportedly-under-investigation-for-battery

“it was bad before so no point fighting now”

That’s what you sound like. Not to mention it’s undeniable that Twitter has more hate speech after apartheid emerald mine oligarch Musk bought it with Saudi money.

https://phys.org/news/2023-04-analysis-speech-significantly-twitter.html

That’s not what I said. In neither situation does the deal enforce that the person HAS to use the loudspeaker for hate speech. I wish I could blame your reading comprehension but it’s painfully obvious you’re arguing in bad faith since this is the pedantic detail you’re stuck on instead of the rest of my argument.

Every Twitter user makes a deal with Twitter to get an account. This deal includes what’s acceptable behaviour. If Twitter’s policy allows hate speech then it’s Twitter’s fault their platform is spreading hate speech. If Twitter’s policy prohibits hate speech then it’s still their fault because they’re not enforcing their policy. This is something Twitter had no problem with before their degenerate new owner fired the enforcement team.

Now let’s see what pedantic detail you get stuck on this time instead of facing the fact Twitter is liable for enabling hate speech to spread faster than ever before!

What’s confusing you?

If you make a deal with someone to come on your front porch every day yelling hate speech into your loudspeaker I think you’ll find it’s pretty easy to be held accountable for what other people say.

Second, if you’ll remember, Twitter makes money from showing adds on this speech. It’s not like they’re doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Profiting from hate speech isn’t going to be looked at kindly.

1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
3. We eat the nutrients in our food
4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it’s just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don’t notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

We need to close the loop again!

More people were killed in the firebombing.

The theory that more people would have died of the nukes weren’t dropped is FAR from settled fact. The Japanese were already looking to surrender and it’s not likely the bomb played a big part in that decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki?wprov=sfla1

Regardless it’s nothing to get banned over, that’s for sure.

In the Jurassic period there were giant insects like dragonflies with 4ft wingspan. Turns out THIS is how we get to Jurassic park

I’m generalizing here, but men’s lib looks VERY different to women’s lib. Women started from a position of very low power, liberation was nearly a continuous improvement for all but the most privileged women.

Men’s lib requires first giving up a lot of patriarchal power before gaining the benefits of men’s lib, which in my opinion far surpass those of patriarchal power. There are a lot of barriers to this. First, most “online” feminists talk only about giving up patriarchal power. This feels hostile to most men and has bolstered misogynist influencers like tate et al. Second real life men and women are typically both complicit as men in enforcing patriarchal views of what a man is supposed to be. You can see experiences of men crying or expressing real emotion in front their prospective significant others as a prime example of this. Third there is no easy to access popular description of the benefits to men of men’s lib. There are great examples, but they aren’t as culturally relevant as patriarchal influencers yet.

The path to men’s lib is complex and has very different challenges than women’s lib. I think we’re getting there, but it’s certainly a slow process and at this time I think the counter reaction is more prevalent and popular.

I love how you can’t even begin to understand the concept that “if all the people who feel bad about hurting others LEAVE positions of power, the only people left with power are those who don’t feel bad”

Don’t try to use your power to make things better, RESIGN so only the corrupt have power. Then you can say “I did the right thing” as things get worse and worse as every ethical person no longer has any power or authority.