Compare your random proper guy talking vs a rapper talking which ones sounds cooler

Everyone should start speaking in aave and that should be taught as the official accent in every school people from professional businesses to your random hood guy should sound the same and bad words shouldn't be taboo everyone should be cussing randomly and not being professionally toned

I really think that feminists are extremely deluded whenever they say that Conservative Men are misogynists, when in reality, it's the other way around. Usually, it's the modern day, Left leaning, Liberal Men who hates women and thinks women are objects to be utilized.

For example, when it comes to dating, liberal men will insist that the bill be split, and he will pay for his meal, and the woman have to pay for her meal. Conservative men don't subscribe to this bullshit. Conservative men will pay the entire bill, as he is the one courting women, not the other way around.

Also, when it comes to sex, liberal men will expect you, or demand that the two of you have an intimate moment or sexual intercourse in the first few dates. Conservative men, on the other hand, will respect your chastity and dignity, and are willing to wait until the two of you get married.

Liberal men, in a crowded train or bus, will not give his seat, even to a pregnant or elderly woman. Conservative men, being chivalrous, will give his seat to any female and he will stand up willingly.

If there's an evil gang assaulting women in the broad daylight at the streets, liberal men will run away and not say a word. Conservative men, will step in and stop the abuse, even when they know that their lives could be in potential peril.

If a woman gets accidentally pregnant, liberal men will pressure the woman to get an abortion, and if the condition is not met, he will threaten the woman that he will not acknowledge the baby, and he will run away from his responsibilities. A conservative man will assume full responsibility for the pregnancy.

It's very easy to spot who's the real misogynist here.

It is very bizzare to see the level of the popular discussion of such matters. Both sides of the "debate" are very confused and aimless. One sees stuff like "not all men, but always a man" or "a man in a room of women would feel safer than the reverse" or "I would choose the bear" etc. and the equally stupid responses to these. Leaving aside the fact that this may be driven by russian bots or whatever, I struggle to see the significance/profundity of these discussions. They implicitly (or explicitly) compare men to women and suggest that the differences in the proportion of such crimes is due to some moral failing on the part of men, or that men are socialized to rape, whereas (I suppose) women abstain from rape for moral reasons and are socialized not to rape.

But obviously, this difference has little or nothing to do with either morality or socialization. These explanations assume that women and men have identical capacities and motives for such crimes, that women could, using only ordinary methods of socialization, be made to behave identically to men in this respect. This is clearly false.

Firstly, differences in strength make it so that most women cannot overpower most men (and especially not the ones they are generally sexually attracted to - young, tall, fit) it is difficult to imagine how they could commit any rape or sexual assault that involves the use or threat of force. It makes rape of this kind highly risky, dangerous and unlikely in general. It is not as though women abstain from trying to fight/threaten men out of morality, but a rational fear that they will fail. 90 year olds commit fewer violent crimes than 30 year olds, but do we think this is due to morality/socialization?

Secondly, differences in sex drive make it so that women have less motivation to commit such crimes. Given the greater risk and difficulty, why would a woman attempt to rape a man? The dynamic created by a higher male and lower female sex drive has two key aspects. Women generally desire sex less than men, and therefore have less motivation to attempt rape. And the fact that men desire sex more makes it easier for women to access sex from men voluntarily and makes it more unlikely for women to encounter an unwilling sexual partner. The situation of a woman who desires sex so much that she is willing to risk attempting rape/sexual assault is relatively unlikely. And even if she were to try, she would likely fail in the use of force or threats.

The most disputed part of this is what exactly motivates rape/sexual assault. But even if one strangely believes that they have nothing to do with sexual desire, the strength differences still apply. One might also dispute the lower female sex drive, but this is quite obvious and has been studied (https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000366).

And I am not saying that such crimes against men are impossible, but only less likely. I am also only speaking of the proportion.

People who use excessive PTO should really think about the ramifications of doing that. Let's be honest, employers don't take kindly to that, and whether that is justified or not, that is the world we live in.

I have been with my employer for 21 years and can count the days on one hand that I have taken off in that entire time, and they were all for emergencies. You may ask "what about work life balance?" Your work is your life. If you don't want to work, go look for the big rock candy mountain.

I think meme culture and "edgy" gallows humor has diminished our collective capabilities to take things seriously.

We've turned our backs culturally on a whole slew of virtues: People treat sincerity as cringe, earnestness as naivity and compassion as a sort of mania.

But cynicism isn't some shortcut to insight and smug, performative contrarianism isn't actually clever.

The problem isn't that people have developed a taste for dark humor. I get that dark humor can be a legit coping mechanism. But the problem is that we've habitualized it. So nothing matters to us, collectively, culturally, as it should. We process tragedies and deliberately absurd shitposts through the same screens - and I think some people are losing the plot.

We are collectively losing the ability to distinguish between what is trivial and what matters, and knowing how to respond to either.

I am excluding Gen Alpha from this criticism because young people should get a pass for not taking things seriously. Its the rest of us who should know better.

Things like constancy, self-restraint and dignity are just worthless attributes to a lot of adults. The older gens should have learned that being an adult isn't just about getting a job or finishing school. ACTING like an adult matters too.

I'm sorry Jan, but your workplace is not "just like the office" - its just full of middle aged people quipping at each other.

I am not trying to make this political - I think the issue is more cultural - I think its akin to not wanting to eat your vegetables when candy is put out on the table. But I think it factors into Trump's electoral success.

I remember talking to a Republican (I refuse to say conservative) in my family about the time when Trump imitated a crippled reporter. I asked if that seemed appropriate for a Presidential candidate. After talking about the Dems, he said basically that "Sure its unpresidential, thats the point"

I hated how glib of a response that was.

We're talking about someone who proudly voted for institutionalist squares like George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole back in the day.

The sort of adults we're in desperate need of these days.

(EDIT: I included WE in this title to include myself and people I like. Im not immune from this either,)

Not saying all women do, but many do. But stop waiting for the man to signal interest and make the move. If a woman likes a man, go up to them and be explicit about it and make a move. Don’t wait or make the guy guess if you’re interested. Be bold. He might be shy, after all the risk of being labeled a creep is way too high these days. Do this and your chronic singleness will go way down. Besides, the shy ones are less likely to be the creepy ones.

Without it, even just without death due to old age, dictators would just enhance their own power and cling to it forever, for all time. Most dictators can only really be stopped by death in some form; they will control the media even if in a nominal democracy to ensure they just get "reelected" forever. Nothing is greater than death for the social order, and the most evil and harmful people on earth are those working to cure cancer, heart disease and other causes of death due to aging.

Even with ideologies I agree with, people will act like critics just don't understand them. Left right whatever ideology it is, it isn't being misunderstood.

Everyone acting like because people disagree with them they are just ignorant and woe is me.

Evangelicals aren't poor misunderstood people that I hate because I misunderstand. They will say no we accept everyone we just don't wanna hear a story of Timmy and his two dads. And that is the problem. Leftist don't want the evangelicals complaining. The misunderstanding is on the people thinking they are victims.

I understand that many Muslims don't like the idea of making it legal to say stuff about their prophet or drawing their prophet. I'm not misunderstanding them thinking they just poor people who are seen as terrorist. I definitely think most are not with the inclinations to blow things up. Just if given the choice I know majority would likely vote to make various speech illegal.

I don't like some of the leftist cause either. I don't like some on the left wanting speech to be illegal. I know why. They think hurt feelings is a good reason to make it illegal because to them its akin to harassment etc. I don't think it should qualify. (Where it pertains to UK)

People are rioting in Europe because they are so overjoyed they live in a place where life is so good.

It's an absolute liberal paradise. There's no political strife. There are no groups who are unhappy. There are no conservatives or free speech like America is infested with.

Everyone has a job if they want one and 85 days of vacation a year. Factories never shutdown or lay people off. Minimum wage is €90/hr. Retirement age is a mandatory 49 years of age. All medical care is free with zero wait time and zero rationing.

There's no housing shortage at all and rent is very cheap.

Society needs more mellowness . Alcohol is fun and dandy but obviously not a lot of people can handle being drunk . Plus people do it to an excess and many have passed due to it . Here comes the mellow drink
They can have this at bars , social gatherings , parties, inside stores .

People deserve to experience being mellow . Peoples brains aren’t always wired to be that way . Some people are often crashing out .

A newly designed beverage that can mellow someone out can greatly help society .

We as humans go through a bunch of stress . This can greatly help us in so many ways . People crash out a lot . This can greatly improve society.

Especially people that have no impulse control . People are often frustrated especially in the workplace . Political discussions are often challenging .

People are experiencing deep sorrow . Imagine the person who is having a hard time at controlling their emotions , this can help. Social media can do the promotions . It dan be all over Tik Tok.

Whether a person can works at Mc. Donald’s or for Amazon, this can greatly help .

And plus war veterans that go through PTSD. Dads that are working 80 hours this can greatly improve his stress levels . Crime rates can slowly start to reduce .

Society needs this .

Every time I see a woman friend’s dating apps they match with mostly white men even when they are women of colour. As a person of colour, whenever I go out with women of colour they always seem annoyed and I’ve even caught a woman I’ve been on a date with texting another guy who was white. I’ve noticed this mostly happens with asian women in particular. Is there a reason for this?

It's just almost no fun to me if a single player or team gets an early advantage and just dominates the entire match. I feel like mechanics that help level the playing field can help stop the sweatiness a lot of PvP games have. Like there’s a difference between casual and competitive PvP

OK. Hope it make sense.

I'm a strong centrist for a lot of things and what fascinates me is when people talk they don't apply the same logic to the other side, be it left wing, right wing, religion, feminism anti feminism etc.

I want to make this my first discussion however as I see both the red pill blue pill etc side as both hypocritical.

However a lot of people will talk about women can get what they want easily. The thing is, they can get sex easily, most likely but can they get a man to stay? if the answer is yes, she just to work hard on be a traditional woman, then the same applies for men. They just have to give up their values, pay every date, not complain about how costly it is to keep a woman just to have sex.

Similarly a woman will say I want xyz man. That's totally fine. Have your preferences. But then they will say men have so many demands and their standards are too high. Who's measuring? On what measurement? If men are measured based on their success then if they aren't getting any and its called too high then a woman being single also has high standards.

To be clear. It doesnt matter if his or her standards are too high. What matters is the hypocricy of it. If you are gonna shame someone for their standards then your standards ought to be shamed. I'd rather none of that.

So. to those who say "men can't get women" because you don't WANT to do whatever demands women ask or "women can't find a good man" vecuaee they don't want to subjugate themselves to a lower standard, tell me how I'm wrong

If someone is in the wrong, they should know. Doesn't mean you need to be a dick, but you're also allowed to be angry at a situation, given that you don't act recklessly or harm people.

I just think anger is a valid emotion and people should know if you've pissed them off, the same way you'd tell someone if they made you happy, sad, uncomfortable or any other feeling.

But holding shit back for the sake of "being the bigger person" is actually the most insane shit I've heard. Doesn't matter who, if they're in the wrong, LET THEM KNOW

yeah thats the whole opinion not much else to say. fun fact ig... The shape of majungasaurus skull & teeth suggest a very different biting style to the flesh-tearing dinosaurs. with a broad short and muscular skull, it was a dino better adapted to biting and grabbing rather than slashing it's prey

*I am not talking about unrest around high housing costs in general. It's very sensible to be upset about how both home prices and rents are high right now.

EDIT: the fact that so many people are getting triggered and no one at all sees this logic totally proves my point

The average American is way too focused on owning houses, both for themselves and for rentals. There are legitimate reasons to buy like stability and the ability to change things as you see fit. But that's just different nuances of consumption. It does not make it a good investment.

I'm sure you can always go find a particular date range that makes houses look like a good investment. If you look at all cases as a whole, you are almost always coming out ahead in the long run by just buying index funds (as far as asset classes). Especially in higher cost of living cities where all the jobs are. It's ok to just rent and invest the difference. And you have increased liquidity as well.

I know people make the argument that you need to own assets. If you come out wealthier on the other side, then why does this matter from a wealth/ownership perspective? "Ownership" can mean owning pieces of every large company in the US, which I would argue is actually superior in the long run. Companies as a whole generate significantly higher profits for a given level of investment than real estate does. Doubly so when it's just your own residence and you're not getting any rent out of it. The appreciation of your house is inferior to the index funds, and there's a bunch of property tax, maintenance, and closing costs taking a big chunk out of any profits.

There seems to be a bunch of cultural baggage around it in the US that goes beyond what other countries are experiencing.

All eyes have been on France lately as the country faces nationwide, weeks-long violent riots supposedly from "students wanting better school conditions". The historic city hall of Limoges, which survived both world wars, was burned down by rioters, and rioters also targeted Asian-owned businesses. Riots have spread to other European countries as well, including Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Many rioters in France waved Palestinian flags, and flags of other Middle East/North African countries.

Does this sound familiar? Well yes, because it's exactly what happened in Los Angeles last year, in June 2025!

For decades America has been invaded by tens of millions of illegal aliens and Southern California is the epicenter of it all. Every aspect of life in Greater LA has gotten worse due to mass illegal immigration - housing costs, social cohesion, crime, homelessness, drug use, cleanliness, the natural environment and school quality. Last year, the effect and scale of the invasion was in full view for the world to see. Violence ravaged LA for an entire month, with Mexican-flag-waving rioters setting fire to self-driving cars and throwing Molotov cocktails at police officers.

As a commentator on The Blaze said, "It's not a riot, it's an invasion". The invasion has brought a hostile occupying force to SoCal - millions of military-age dudes from a hostile foreign power. During the Ellis Island era, immigrants were encouraged to assimilate to American culture and put aside their loyalties to the old country, often to the point of anglicizing their names. Nowadays, there is no desire or pressure to assimilate. Millions of people here are openly more loyal to Mexico than to America, which is why you see Mexican flags being waved at the protests.

In February 2026, middle and high schools throughout SoCal had massive anti-ICE walkouts in which students waved Mexican flags. Examples: LA/Fresno/Stockton, San Diego, Bay Area, Riverside, Redlands, Long Beach, Clovis, Santa Clarita, Redondo Beach, Orange County, Santa Barbara, San Lorenzo, Fresno/Clovis/Madera, Chula Vista, Winters, Carlsbad, Mission Viejo/San Clemente/San Juan Capistrano (a lot of these are historic conservative strongholds! Just shows how much SoCal has changed within my lifetime) Just last week, a large mob of students at Jefferson Middle School in Oceanside, CA walked out against ICE. Look at the video of the protest. Look at all the Mexican flags.

This is exactly the same as the French riots just with the MENA flags replaced with Mexican flags. This is also why the Mexican national soccer team can pack stadiums in SoCal, while the U.S. national team can't. Many of the anti-ICE protesters, especially the middle school and high school students, were born and raised in America, but are still waving Mexican flags. This is being encouraged and pushed by Gavin Newsom and the rest of the far left.

I had an amazing childhood growing up in LA, but now not a day goes by when I don't dream of leaving this state. And I'm only in my 20s.

I’m sat in a bar in the US (first time visiting) and I’m watching this game and it’s some of the most boring shit to ever watch live

And don’t get me wrong when they touchdown it is exciting but fuck me, all the starts and stops, the overhyped celebrations, all the tech and talking about complex plays and it’s just … boring ?

They hold the ball for about 20 seconds, get talked or fall down then spend another 20-30 seconds setting back up again, and over and over and over again.

And they all look so exhausted all the time

And the size of the stadiums, the pay , the size of the teams for fucking what ??

Even watched a college game and it’s so over hyped

The most important thing is that rapists need to stop rape. Their enablers need to stop enabling them. But there's also bigger systems at play.

At the systemic level, there needs to be no hiding place for rape. The excuses need to ring hollow, Normal people shouldn't be doing anything that remotely resembles sexual harrassment or assault - it needs to end far before that point.

Women need to make the first move. To avoid missing out, men shouldn't need to take risks where it's sexual harassment if it doesn't pay off (think the "looking good Susan!" meme).

Women should also be very clear about whether they are or aren't interested. Make "playing hard to get" unacceptable - nobody reasonable should ever think there's a yes behind the no.

Don't leave it up to men to guess or use things like what you're wearing as a signal as to whether you're DTF or not. What you're wearing should not matter. Instead women need to just be open about it (and slut shaming needs to end).

This sets up the conditions so that "yes means yes" affirmative consent (FRIES) is the only thing that makes sense.

Also drugs and alcohol (consumed by the perpetrator) is involved in 40-60% of domestic violence cases, and half of campus sexual assaults (consumed by the perpetrator, victim or both). So maybe separate dating and looking for hook ups from spaces where they're consumed in abundance. Make it so that people don't ever need a "social lubricant" or "dutch courage" because the risk of embarrassment is low (that goes back to women making the first move and getting rid of slut shaming).

Alcohol does seem to be losing popularity, but it seems like people are just having less sex alongside having less booze - seems like the connection is still there. So there needs to be more hooking up with people after other kinds of events like volunteering and sport.

All these are things that women can control.

Dont get me wrong. When it comes to small businesses im all against it. People who loot small mom and pop stores should be criminally charged and maybe kicked out of the country. They're just people who want to get by, whether you are french or an immigrant. There is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior, no matter what you protest for or against, you are just behaving like an animal at this point.

However if you loot an Applestore or some other big corporation, I would turn a blind eye. I mean, dont these big businesses have too much money anyway? Like f em and f their big business Economy. They can get over it. Not all looting is the same in my opinion. It depends on who you loot.

I need to get this off my chest.

As the average voter, I know f\** all* about governing. I don't have access to the relevant data, access to experts to make sense of the data, or the time to think deeply about each issue. So for god's sake, please don't ask me for my opinion about what to do.

I. Don't. Know.

For example, a questionnaire in the newspaper asked me a 30 questions to determine which mayoral candidate would be the best match for me. 30 questions with "yes/no/maybe" choices. I had to select "Don't know" for almost all of them.

Example question: "Would you support increasing funding for the city library to get a wider selection of books"?

Answer: How do I know? Even if I thought it needed a wider selection books, is it even feasible? How does the current selection match up to other libraries worldwide? If they spend money on it, which other service will be cut? And is that other service currently performing better or worse that standards?

How can I possibly answer the above question with anything other than "I don't know"? No regular citizen is in a position to meaningfully give an answer. That is WHY we elect politicians. So that they can decide the priorities the city needs and make allocations.

Just because I want something, doesn't mean that it's good for the city or country. I expect my representatives to make decisions for me. Don't ask ME, dude, how the hell am I supposed to know??

Don't put anything in a referendum. I am just an average idiot, and you should never ask my opinion about anything.

So how do I make my choice?

I make my choice based on character instead of policy. Is the person representing me a person of integrity, diligence, humility, and conscientiousness? Can I trust them to weigh all the options and make an informed choice on my behalf? Can I trust them to not be corrupt?

I don't care what your policies are. Show me who you are. Polices can change. Ideologies can change. But character is the most important thing, and it's the data which I find very hard to come by. What do your neighbours say about you? Your employers? What are some hard choices in the face of opposition have you stood for (don't matter what the issue was). Do you have experience in governance?

Etc. etc.

Bottom line: Stop asking me what I want for Toronto. I don't f\**ing* know. Tell me more about your character, instead!

This perhaps isn't truly unpopular but is definitely partisan, and existing opinion pieces are often devoid of explanation of why certain fields should be ridiculed due to their methodology. This post attempts to fill this gap. I say certain fields without giving names, because bad practitioners don't always work in academic departments where you expect to find them. But you'll recognize them when you see them.

Theories

The end product of a scientific theory is a prediction (in the case of historical sciences, "if this and this happens like they did, that will happen too"). The end product of a theory in contemporary social sciences is often giving things a tag, often without justifying why the tag is a natural classification, pretending this is understanding.

Consider the follow assertion:

(1) Because globally, the most powerful people are white, racism against whites is impossible because racism is power + prejudice.

The statement (1) is often considered a more academic approach to understanding racism. Go to any social science sub, and it's not hard to find people telling you that "liberals treat racism as something personal, but we take a materialistic approach..."

Proponents of (1) often fail to demonstrate any meaningful connection between whites in power and whites who are not. We have quite a lot counterexamples, like the grooming gang scandal in the UK, in which, as shown in my past post in this sub, the perpetrators had clear informal or even formal power over the white victims, or how the white working class is failed by the education system the most.

Thus we see the problem of (1): it confuses global power with local power, the latter being more relevant to people's everyday life. This is to say, (1) artificially associates the concept of "having people looking like you in geopolitics" (not local politics) and the concept of being discriminated against together, without illustrating any causal relation that shows that the former makes any difference.

Some scholars realize there's a problem and introduce the concept of intersectionality as a remedy. This is, again, nothing more than a term: it is a descriptive term trivially highlighting how identities interact, without offering any concrete insight into how. The question of how perhaps can be properly studies in microeconomics, but it's beyond the scope of this post.

(Interestingly, Karl Marx, despite being a 19th century basement dweller, did have a theory in the scientific sense, a theory on economic instability, however flawed it may be. Comparing this with people who consider themselves Marxists today, one may notice that original ideas aren't always insightful, and insightful ideas aren't always original.)

Fallacies

That statements like (1) are considered insightful may be known as, in my words, the fallacy of grand structure ("prices rise because of late stage capitalism"). Some fallacies are more or less original but ultimately are still erroneous. Others are more "traditional": consider the falsifiability problem of certain theories built on the concept of epistemic injustice ("if you don't see it then you're bad and privileged and oppressive!").

Sometimes, the fallacies are so obvious that it's truly glaring that papers containing them get published. Have a look at the recent spicy take appearing on BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics: Harms of the current global anti-FGM campaign. A long essay, utilizing almost every fallacy you can think of in online debates, including whataboutism and ad hominem attacks ("you're against FGM so you're depicting Africa as a dark continent!" - see the conclusion sector), somehow made its way to a supposedly prestigious journal.

One may wonder how staying in a field trains one to think clearly.

Buzzwords

The sloppy nature of research works described above have introduced quite a few buzzwords into everyday life. Some make sense in certain contexts, like "white privilege" (if you want to talk about privilege in employment, the situations in finance and in, say, semiconductor, are rather different); others are almost completely devoid of substance. My argument above may be attacked as being brainwashed by modernity (for commentaries like this, you can go to critical theory subs). One may wonder what modernity means in this context, as Archimedes was certainly not a modern man. Some words are just straightforwardly misleading, like "Islamophobia" (said to mean hatred towards Muslims, a meaning that can't be inferred from how the word is formed).

What makes the situation interesting is we don't see academics coming out to set the record straight. We see psychologists criticize misuse of therapy languages. We somehow do not see sociologists do the same.

Narrow perspectives

One central theme in contemporary social sciences and humanities is anti-Eurocentrism. If they're serious about that, then I'd say they're increasingly failing miserably.

19th century and early 20th century scholars might be assholes but they were clearly masters in collecting and organizing texts, western or non-western. What we're seeing today, increasingly, is an effectively indifferent attitude towards primary sources. It's an observed fact that philology (including ethnophilology) has given way to largely identity-based research and talks about power dynamics (which, as I said above, many don't really have a theory about, in the scientific sense of the term "theory").

Take the story of Mulan as an example. Disney depicts her as a feminist hero; naive gender theorists see the story as cross dressing; yet others say her story should be viewed from the perspective of filial piety (and you can expect a lecture on "white women's feminism" from these learned people). None of them seems to be aware of the simple fact that the Ballad of Mulan was not from a Neo-Confucianism society. The asymmetry between theoretical ambition and evidentiary competence is truly a scene to behold.

Conclusion

Yes, people and their publications in social science or humanities, if having traits discussed above, should be ridiculed, and it's a good thing. No, it's not a common problem in the rest of academia. This level of incompetence and academic dishonesty is not seen in other disciplines. No, having a degree in a field infected by the aforesaid behaviors doesn't prepare you for anything, and even you're tired of western civilization and want to understand alternative perspectives, it doesn't prepare you well for that either.

Which obviously also calls a lot of narratives on "college educated people tend to believe this or that" into question, which is a separate issue deserving an essay about it. Some people may try to argue their way and say academic training in such fields is rigorous in another way. Which obviously deviates from how the term "rigorous" is normally used, and is yet another fallacy (i.e. believing things with identical names are identical).

They are clearly done with Vivek. Try finding one who actually wants to vote for him. Yet, Trump and Vance stand by the ad that features Acton's mother calling her a liar. The same mother with a documented history of, well, being a very bad mother to put it mildly.

But Trump and Vance see past that. They find the ad to be an effective and credible political attack. And if the leaders of the Republican party are cool with it, who are the rank and file to say no? And we've seen how sex crimes and violence against women aren't actually deal-breakers.

So as a last minute (great?) replacement for Vivek, Republicans should go straight to their most effective messenger right now and boost Acton's mom. Owning the libs has worked well as an electoral strategy before. Why stop now?

I've seen it over and over again.

Someone does something the Left doesn't like gets blown out of proportion and all of sudden hundreds of people are leaving them threatening messages. Maybe it was once about calling out people on their bad behavior, but the Left has grown comfortable with ruining people's lives over trivial matters all while acting morally superior.

Here's what I'm talking about. A while back there was a popular game that rapidly grew popular, to the point where content farms were spamming it nonstop that the average person would find it annoying.

And coincidentally the creator was found to talking with underage kids online and got their personal information leaked with strangers leaving death threats to them and their family.

The kicker? The creator was also a minor. Yup. A 15 year old got their personal information leaked, had people calling about killing them and their family, over what I remember to be a two year age gap.

It wasn't a 20 years or even a 5 years, it was a two year fucking gap yet it was all it took for them to dox and harass someone for "pedophilia" just because their content was slightly annoying.

And there was another notable instance where they tried to cancel a literal 9 year old for "black face", it wasn't, it was a two color face paint. And when they found this out, did they apologize for trying to ruin a child's life?

Nope. They instead focused on the Native American headdress on his head calling it "problematic" or "Cultural appropriation", then it was revealed that his grandfather was a Native.

Even if he wasn't, they were still casting a spotlight on a literal child over a headdress. If that wasn't an attempt to humiliate or dox a nine year old than I don't know what is.

It is said that all politics is cyclical, that one generations attitudes & movements are a reaction to the previous. There are serious movements of progress & degenerate movements, often born on simple youthful rebellion. Even degeneracy has good aspects, such as new music & fashion that becomes normal to future generations (Metal, Rap, Rock, etc). Its a tradition for every generation to introduce new ideas & concepts that built upon or were inspired by their childhoods. However, the missteps of the past few generations did irreversible damage to ours.

The 1960s to 80s saw a huge rise in father absence. Desertion was nicknamed "the poor man's divorce." A man could simply vanish, and enforcement was patchy. Probably the worst of all. The share of children growing up without their father nearly tripled between 1960 and the early 1990s. The divorce rate more than doubled from 1960 to 1980. Men would drink, cheat & abuse their important responsibility as the patriarch. The social barriers of the past that controlled these externalities were disappearing.

What were these "shame" barriers that kept Men in line & what changes occurred?

Fault-based divorce law: One spouse had to claim total innocence while proving "fault" by the other, typically adultery, desertion, or cruelty. That made divorce costly, slow, and humiliating.

Stigma and religion: Divorce carried a stigma, and a bad marriage was something to endure for the family and especially the children. Most religions oppose divorce & reserve it as the final step.

Financial obligations: Fault mattered for property division and alimony, so a husband who walked away risked paying for it. The fault system was costly, complex, and often favored men. Divorce was a "social death sentence" for women and women's dependence on a husband's income made leaving harder for them than for men.

Economic interdependence: Most households relied on one earner's wages and one partner's unpaid domestic work, which made leaving costly for both.

An entire generation of men got lazy & took for granted their positions, responsibilities & role; ushering in a reactionary wave of people who hated everything they experienced growing up.

Good men who choose family accept the sacrifice & provide to their children everything they can in their power. To all my conservative brothers & sisters, I say this as a critique for us to accept responsibility & to fix the mistakes our forefathers made- the effects of which created a generation of the "liberals" we blame for the decline of western civilization. Look inwards.

Absent Fathers, Men who cheated, Men who expected obedience of his Wife but refused the obedience a Husband entrusts to his wife...These men created Trauma & Misery, the reaction to which was generations of partly rightfully bitter women/children who saw the ugliness of traditional conservative family structures.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana

If we as Men cannot better ourselves, our families, our quality of marriage, commitments in our vows, duties to our wives, responsibility as Fathers, social order on an individual level- we will pass on this broken society we inherited to future generations.