Misogyny

[Mr Reasonable]

Also Ryan Lochte was as high as a kite, or hung over from the night before. Have you ever heard that guy speak? I don't think it was the other athlete's performance enhancing drugs, I think it was Lochte's performance reducing ones.

[encode_decode]

Serendipper

Now for a confession - not all of what I wrote I believe myself but taking the conventional route seemed like the lame way to go with this topic so I wanted to add some fuel to the fire - it seems to have worked. Now I will only answer what I find applicable from angles I agree with to an extent.

I'm not sure about self-centeredness because I specifically put thought into how the word would be interpreted and I figured someone would eventually take issue with my choice of words and was prepared for that eventuality, but couldn't think of a better word to portray what I wanted.

No, I was not talking about you being self centered. I was speaking about our English language not being expressive enough from the other side of the coin for most topics and this becomes very apparent in philosophy - leading to artifacts like intervention bias. This topic in itself is tricky so I will say nothing more of it here. The main thing to take away is that I am not thinking of you or what you are saying as self-centered - I am certainly not saying that you add a drastic amount of opinion to what you say.

James said something that was profoundly insightful which is evolution only works if it's resisted. If you think about it, there must be a competitive force that is fighting, resisting life in order for natural selection to work. If there were no resistance, there would be no selection and no means to evolve into higher life. So if there is resistance, there must be a greater force driving forward that overcomes the resistance.

That sounds pretty damn correct to me - for there must be a greater force, driving forward, that overcomes the resistance.

Atoms form molecules which form amino acids which form proteins which form cells which form organisms. Where does the life property come from if it's not native to the universe? Life has intent, will, which is what fights entropy (apparently).

Let me put my response a different way - I agree with 98% of what you are saying here plus or minis 2%, which I think is an acceptable degree to say that I agree.

As for the rest of your post I found it very interesting and I would say that I agree with about 85% of it.

Do you think culture might play a part in evolution? Selection of mates for mating etc.?

[Serendipper]

Now for a confession - not all of what I wrote I believe myself but taking the conventional route seemed like the lame way to go with this topic so I wanted to add some fuel to the fire - it seems to have worked. Now I will only answer what I find applicable from angles I agree with to an extent.

Good idea! I just mentioned yesterday in urwrong's thread that playing devil's advocate may be a good strategy for adding content and practice for debating with dispassionate passion

I'm not sure about self-centeredness because I specifically put thought into how the word would be interpreted and I figured someone would eventually take issue with my choice of words and was prepared for that eventuality, but couldn't think of a better word to portray what I wanted.

No, I was not talking about you being self centered. I was speaking about our English language not being expressive enough from the other side of the coin for most topics and this becomes very apparent in philosophy - leading to artifacts like intervention bias. This topic in itself is tricky so I will say nothing more of it here. The main thing to take away is that I am not thinking of you or what you are saying as self-centered - I am certainly not saying that you add a drastic amount of opinion to what you say.

Oh okie dokie.

This reminds me of the Amplified Bible which strives to be as clear as language will allow:

An excellent woman [one who is spiritual, capable, intelligent, and virtuous], who is he who can find her? Her value is more precious than jewels and her worth is far above rubies or pearls.

As opposed to the same verse in the King James:

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

James said something that was profoundly insightful which is evolution only works if it's resisted. If you think about it, there must be a competitive force that is fighting, resisting life in order for natural selection to work. If there were no resistance, there would be no selection and no means to evolve into higher life. So if there is resistance, there must be a greater force driving forward that overcomes the resistance.

That sounds pretty damn correct to me - for there must be a greater force, driving forward, that overcomes the resistance.

It appears the idea dawned on him the spring of 2014. Er, I guess it would be Fall for you.

Evolution is the destruction of one state (or person) in such a way as to produce a "stronger" state or person. But the goal of the original person was not to die out and leave something behind that would be stronger. If that goal is consciously chosen, evolution no longer works. For evolution to work, one must resist it at all cost. It is by not being able to resist evolution sufficiently that evolution wins the battle and destroys the weaker state, leaving only the stronger. But if evolution is intentionally chosen, the new state is the result of a prior choice, not a prior contest of strength. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185497&p=2461761&hilit=evolution+resist#p2461761

And "we humans" want to control evolution to our own design.
Of course, evolution only works when you try to resist it. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185374&p=2459223&hilit=evolution+resist#p2459223

And this is a good thread: Is Evolution True? Apparently James was/is a theist.

But yes, it seems there would have to be a ubiquitous will driving it forward and now we've circled around to Alan Watts' observation that "mineral is a simple form of consciousness instead of consciousness being a complicated form of mineral." I mean, it makes no sense to have consciousness spring forth from magic once elements are plugged into specific configurations. Consciousness, life, must exist in degrees of complexity; not caused by degrees of complexity.

Atoms form molecules which form amino acids which form proteins which form cells which form organisms. Where does the life property come from if it's not native to the universe? Life has intent, will, which is what fights entropy (apparently).

Let me put my response a different way - I agree with 98% of what you are saying here plus or minis 2%, which I think is an acceptable degree to say that I agree.

You can't leave me hanging wondering what the 2% is lol

As for the rest of your post I found it very interesting and I would say that I agree with about 85% of it.

So... I earned a B+

Do you think culture might play a part in evolution?

Yes, of course, it's circular. My head in is my mind and my mind is in my head and my head is in my mind and... on and on in a feedback loop. Evolution influences culture which influences evolution which influences culture...

Subject/object, resistance/force, organism/environment, duality ad infinitum.

You have to somehow get your head around the fact that these infinite regressions, insoluble puzzles, can only indicate one thing: if you're in a trap you can't get out of, then you and the trap are the same thing and there is no trap nor anyone to get out of it; it's a camera looking at its own monitor.

Selection of mates for mating etc.?

Yes a quick example of that is the advancement in technology that has reduced infant mortality which enabled skinny women to be seen as sexier than women who had a shape more conducive to giving healthy births. Look at the women portrayed in old art and compare to what "sexy" is today.

Skinny faces with crowded teeth is a calcium deficiency, but is sexy because of modern dentistry. In old times, what we consider sexy would be considered sickly.

And then there is this:

Analyses of the
National Child Development Study show that more intelligent men and women express
preference to remain childless early in their reproductive careers, but only more intelligent
women (not more intelligent men) are more likely to remain childless by the end of their
reproductive careers. Controlling for education and earnings does not at all attenuate the
association between childhood general intelligence and lifetime childlessness among
women. One-standard-deviation increase in childhood general intelligence (15 IQ points)
decreases women’s odds of parenthood by 21–25%. Because women have a greater impact
on the average intelligence of future generations, the dysgenic fertility among women is
predicted to lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population in advanced
industrial nations. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1ae3/f ... 16d9d7.pdf

Since women may have greater impact on the general intelligence of the
future generations, the dysgenic fertility among women – where less intelligent women are more likely to have children than
more intelligent women – may lead to the prediction, supported by recent studies, that the average level of intelligence may
steadily decline throughout the 21st century.

It would seem that the empowerment of women is shooting ourselves in the foot. Whatever we are consciously trying to do, evolution will be fighting it. So all this progressiveness can only lead to one end.

Prosperity causes its own destruction as generations lose sight of why silly traditions exist.

[Serendipper]

Also Ryan Lochte was as high as a kite, or hung over from the night before. Have you ever heard that guy speak? I don't think it was the other athlete's performance enhancing drugs, I think it was Lochte's performance reducing ones.

LOL! No I've no clue who those people are, but it seems women are catching up because they are overtaking the times of the best men from the past, I'm assuming.

I may have answered my own question through realizing that technology has changed what men view as sexy and that may be contributing to the evolution of women being more athletic since they don't need to be fat cows anymore to bear children that survive. So I guess men and women are genetically converging. Women don't need to be as womanly in modern times and it seems that men prefer that they not be, since they could share more common interests.

[encode_decode]

Serendipper

Brilliant post, I particularly like the following:

It would seem that the empowerment of women is shooting ourselves in the foot. Whatever we are consciously trying to do, evolution will be fighting it. So all this progressiveness can only lead to one end.

Prosperity causes its own destruction as generations lose sight of why silly traditions exist.

Congratulations on a very thoughtful post.

[Zero_Sum]

Basically feminism is a social economic conspiracy against western civilization by those that want to see western civilization annihilated. The best way to destroy a civilization is to sexually divide men and women along with the natural impulses of reproduction or having a family.

Feminism is a social economic weapon of depopulation but more importantly it is a cultural identity destroyer because every nation at its heart revolves around reproduction between men and women, all national identities springs fourth between that union and bond. Destroy that union and bond you essentially destroy a nation.

To do this you need to focus all females attention or energies on non-reproductive activities of careerism and education in the most fertile periods of their lifespans where once they start realizing things at an older age they've already become infertile to do anything about it. You also create a narrative of tyrannical patriarchy by painting a broad stroke that behind every man there is a rapist, monster, or sexual tyrant. The goal there is to alienate men and women from each other. Disunity between the sexes culturally, existentially, and socially is a way to bring any nation to its knees.

While there is the preaching of overpopulation where it is said that it is better to not have children at all you import endless amounts of foreigners that breed like rabbits paying for their existence with a welfare system that essentially financially bankrupts an entire nation.

The message is clear, white Europeans don't breed but all the foreigners are supported to do the direct opposite.

Feminism is pushed heavily onto white ethnic European women because in the state's words the goal is to destroy all whiteness and if ethnic white European women were to stop focusing on careers or education instead having children within a family in large numbers the first comment out of the corrupt state we live under would be that it is a catastrophe that needs to be corrected it that isn't normal under their plans of the new normal.

Once you understand feminism as the direct result of a pogrom to eradicate whiteness and destroy western civilization it becomes much easier to understand what it is all about. This is why I pity women because most aren't smart enough to know what they've been manipulated into doing and when they eventually wisen up over a period of time if at all the best fertile years of their lives is simply gone. It's all a horrible tragedy that takes its toll on both men and women alike.

[Serendipper]

Serendipper

Brilliant post, I particularly like the following:

It would seem that the empowerment of women is shooting ourselves in the foot. Whatever we are consciously trying to do, evolution will be fighting it. So all this progressiveness can only lead to one end.

Prosperity causes its own destruction as generations lose sight of why silly traditions exist.

Congratulations on a very thoughtful post.

Thanks and I appreciate the feedback, but they're just ideas I stumbled upon or the random epiphanies.

I had a talk with grandma a few years ago. She didn't learn to drive until 35 (and by some measures, she still hasn't yet learned lol). Women in her day were completely dependent upon men. I asked her what a single mother would have done back then and she replied "Oh gosh, I don't know, go to a charity or church or something." And that was only the 1940s and 50s she was talking about. If we go further back in time, a woman didn't have a chance on her own; hence the importance of the tradition of the sanctity of marriage. A man had to vow to always care for his wife lest she starve or worse.

But today marriage seems an antiquated tradition since women drive just fine, have plenty of job opportunities, and the state has stepped in to be the provider (husband) of last resort. Children are increasingly being raised in fatherless homes or having strange men come and go. There is nothing in our evolution to have prepared us for these swift changes that technology has brought.

THIS ACCIDENTAL EXPERIMENT SHOWS THE SUPERIORITY OF PATRIARCHY

Here is what happened: initially both groups were dropped on their respective islands, given some supplies to get started and left to fend for themselves. In both groups there was some initial squabbling as people tried to figure out a local hierarchy. The men pretty much did whatever they felt was necessary – there was no leader giving orders. Men who felt like hunting, foraging or fishing did so. Another guy decided he was fed up with sitting on sand and started making benches. Others built a hut that gradually grew and evolved. Another guy cooked every night. Within days a neat little civilization was thriving, each day being slightly more prosperous than the previous one.

The women settled into a routine as well. The hung up a clothesline to dry their towels, then proceeded to sunbathe and squabble. Because unlike men, women were unable to do anything without consensus of the whole group. And because it was a group of at least a dozen women, consensus was never reached. During the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, got drenched by tropical storms several times, were eaten alive by sand fleas and were generally miserable. The men on the other hand, were quite content. There were disagreements of course, but they were generally resolved.

Eventually, the people running the program decided something had to change. In order to help the women out, three men would be selected to go to their island. In return, three women would take their place at the men’s island. The look on my feminist roommates face during this episode was priceless.

Initially, the three men selected for the women’s island were ecstatic, for obvious reason. But then they arrived at the island and were greeted by the women.

‘Where is your hut?’, they asked.

‘We have no hut’

‘Where are your supplies?’ they asked, dismayed

‘We ate all the rice’

And so on. The three men ended up working like dogs, using all the skills developed by trial and error in their first few weeks – building a hut, fish, trying to get the women to forage. The women continued to bitch and sunbathe. The three women who were sent to the men’s island were delighted – food, shelter and plenty of male attention was freely available. They too continued to sunbathe.

And that my friends, is what patriarchy is. My former roommate, unsurprisingly, is no longer a feminist.

Now this might all be a fluke, a white raven, an exceptional case not representative of society as whole. But that particular season of Dutch Survivor is not unique. CBS broadcast several Survivor seasons in the US, where men and women started off in separate groups. In most cases (the Amazon and One World), the result was the same. The men quickly got their act together, getting access to food, fire and shelter while the women spent a lot of time and energy on petty little squabbles, eating their meager supplies, getting drenched in storms and generally being pathetic. The opposite situation, where men didn’t get their act together while women quickly built a functional micro society, has not yet been observed outside of feminist fiction, and it probably never will.

[Serendipper]

Once you understand feminism as the direct result of a pogrom to eradicate whiteness and destroy western civilization it becomes much easier to understand what it is all about.

I think it may be the other way around... the pogrom is the result of feminism.

[Zero_Sum]

Once you understand feminism as the direct result of a pogrom to eradicate whiteness and destroy western civilization it becomes much easier to understand what it is all about.

I think it may be the other way around... the pogrom is the result of feminism.

Explain.

[Serendipper]

Once you understand feminism as the direct result of a pogrom to eradicate whiteness and destroy western civilization it becomes much easier to understand what it is all about.

I think it may be the other way around... the pogrom is the result of feminism.

Explain.

Feminists protect the perceived-weak (women, minorities, animals (peta), homosexuals, whatever) and they attack whatever is causing the oppression (white man). Get rid of feminism and everything else loses steam.

If not, then expect liberty to be sacrificed in the name of security because that's what people who are scared of spiders do (mamma bear syndrome).

So no nazi-saluting dogs allowed (safety is more important than freedom). Cameras everywhere, speech is banned, feels trump facts.

First Minister of Scotland:



England:



The queen:



Germany:



New Zealand:



Almost president and winner of popular vote:



House minority leader:



But you'll never win because men will never stop kissing the butts of women trying to score chivalry points. All you can do is sit back and watch, but I don't think either of us will live to see the end since it's been going on way before I was born and I'm not even sure it's close to halfway. The kids born today might see it, but it took 1-200 years for Rome to fall apart starting from a situation about like this, though time does move faster due to technology.

[Zero_Sum]

As I said in another thread feminism especially the neo liberal variety will lose steam, power, and influence once the west economically collapses.

The vulgar decadence of neo liberal feminism exists as a luxury as it is promoted financially by the big arm of government, once the money is gone along with the government safety net that props up this sexual decadence so too will feminism be gone. It's going to be rough and brutal on women because they're going to be faced with hordes of men they've insulted, criticized, lambasted, and diminished for several decades that to say they're going to receive the cold shoulder initially is an understatement to put it mildly. Eventually in this destructive phase there will be some kind of reconciliation between men and women but it will most certainly have a rough start in the beginning. It's going to be a tremendous big shock on women collectively and mentally. (Especially when after the collapse the hunger games begin.)

Also, once the rest of the world sees the utter collapse of western feminism neo liberal feminism will lose power all over the rest of the world and more than likely will never be repeated again as an experiment. This will especially be true for nations like Japan where western neo liberal feminism has been imported politically and has had disastrous consequences for Japanese men.