More Childless Men: Women Do Not Want Children With Low-status Men

[Afro_Vacancy]

I don't want my master's degree to become a joke

I have a PhD and I assume that most people don't give a sh*t.

In general, you shouldn't be proud of the piece of paper, but rather the work you did to earn it.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

He's not against gender-neutral pronouns.

He's against forcing people to use them, which now the law in Canada, and yes, you could go to jail for using the wrong pronoun. Same in California, and this legal cancer seems to be spreading.

And if you think it's just using them, or he for she, think again, he's the list of the pronouns that you're now forced to use in Canada:

http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/

View attachment 71359

You'd better start studying them.

I'm not making any of this up.

And Jordan Peterson recognizes that there is a very small minority of people who have ambiguous gender, he has never said otherwise.

You seem to have a very superficial understanding of this issue. I don't think you've really watched any of his lectures otherwise you would never write what you've written above. And you'd never mispel his name too .

But as I've said, the normal reaction to have to Jordan Peterson's ideas from a distance is: "he's a smug pseudo-intellectual who thinks he can tell people how to live their lives, I prefer to think for myself unlike all the people who fall for his ideas!"

Something like that. It makes people feel better and superior, I know how it works, you dismiss something off the bat thinking that you're above it all. Great, you've won, Peterson is an idiot, people who follow him are idiots, and you're not. Here's a cookie.

My observation, being hooked up to the SJW crowd, is that he/she/they is what will emerge.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I think we are desperately in need of an intellectual movement that addresses the problems of economic inequality and environmental destruction, without giving space to blatant insanity like demanding people learn a double-digit number of pronouns to indulge the fantasy world of college kids, or advocating denial of the problems that come with immigration from under-developed countries.

The first two issues are extremely important and why I self-identify as a leftist. I actually think the strongest argument against immigration from muslim countries comes from the left; immigrants from these countries have a low employment rate, make more use of social services and welfare programs, and when they are employed it's usually in low-skill sectors and public sector jobs. This means that the lower classes are hurt disproportionately since they face stiffer competition for the same resources.

Obviously, the failure of leftist politicians, academics and public persons to address these issues properly has lead a number of people to seek answers with deeply reactionary thinkers. In the process it has turned these people into climate-deniers, race realists and worse.

I recommend Yves Smith's Naked Capitalism blog.

That said, though it's nice to have a sane place to read, and an informed one at that, it's still just a straw in the wind. Regardless of the need for such a movement, it will not emerge due to various cultural and institutional obstacles.

 

[Erland]

I didn't read the OP but how will these women get kids then? f*** the same good looking guy to get 9/10 offsprings?

 

[Erland]

The answer you will get is: informal harems and out-of-wedlock kids with Chad.

There are always women who are way into their 30s who want kids, so once you get there I bet they won't be as picky about your jawline or your body, they still get their kids, right?

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Above, you're describing the left in the traditional sense, the voice of the working class. This is not what the left is anymore, they've abandoned the working class to play identity politics, which is partly why their base has given them the middle finger and voted for Trump.

I agree completely.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I witnessed a frustrating discussion the other day on Hillary Clinton's foreign policy credentials. She was critiqued for being a warmonger (reference to Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Russia), and a lot of people were incredulous, how can someone say that about Hillary when Trump himself is a warmonger?

One person wrote that the dismissal of Hillary is insensitive, as the USA is already at war, it's been waging war on native Americans since 1492.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Who says climate change is man-made?

Who says it's as bad as scientists make it out to be?

Who says there is something we can do about it?

And if there's something we can do, what the hell is it?

Fight me!

So I guess I'm on the right end of the political spectrum regarding that aspect: I think the people who say they care about climate change or about "saving the planet" are just after positions of power.

Just like the vast majority of the social justice warriors who pretend to be on the side of the oppressed. Because they're not willing to work hard to make it in society.

They create imaginary problems so they can embody an imaginary identity and pretend that they're doing something positive for society. Without actually doing anything. When I see a whole environmental department in the EU institutions in which millions get poured and where are the results?

Oh there they are:

https://www.neweurope.eu/article/eu-finally-grants-last-minute-five-year-license-glyphosate/

It's all a charade and this is why I cannot be a proper leftist these days. The working class needs a voice and they need to stop with this environmental nonsense. Who says the planet is dying? Where is the actual evidence besides "oh you'll see in 20 years!" Please, this needs to stop, that's what they said 20 years ago, that Belgium would be half-under water by now or something.

Identity politics and environmentalism, they can play those games forever and they'll never be held accountable, that's the beauty of it.

I think right-wingers have a valid point when they say climate change is a made-up issue.

There's plenty of evidence for the biosphere being in bad shape. The Brazilian rainforest, for example has shrunk significantly, as has the Madagascar rainforest.Fish stocks in the oceans are down significantly. Lots of species have gone and are going extinct. It's not a difficult argument to make.

I went through the global warming denial literature during my contrarian phase in my early 20s. It's a whole lot of speculative science based on cherrypicking of data, shifted goalposts, etc. For example the morons who talk about sunspots and cosmic rays. What the opposition comes down to is that the global economy is largely based off petroleum. The post-carbon future (which is inevitable regardless of climate change) will see a drastic change in the distribution of power worldwide.

At the end of the day, carbon dioxide levels are increasing, that is largely due to man, global temperatures are increasing as a result, and there's a risk of significant positive feedback down the line that could have significant consequences.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Yeah I guess you're right to some extent.

I just can't see it as an important problem right now, even if it's real.

This goes at the bottom of the pile for me.

The world can't re-allocate a couple million Syria refugees without major upheavals.

Imagine if 200 million Bangladeshis lose their home.

 

[Dench57]

Yeah I guess you're right to some extent.

I just can't see it as an important problem right now, even if it's real.

This goes at the bottom of the pile for me.

yeah, our grandchildren can go f*** themselves!

 

[CaptainForehead]

A lot of what he says feels like pseudo-erudite word salad to me. I think his fans are responding to his insistent, shamanic tone of voice and vague anti-left, anti-SJW sentiment more than anything. He communicates in an almost mystical manner. Like he's a soothsayer for Minecraft-playing Pepes and internet atheists.

Zircon is back

 

[CaptainForehead]

I'm in STEM, I wouldn't call myself a scientist.

I know squat about climate change

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Zircon is back

@zircon has the healthiest attitude of all the forum regulars.

He comes in for two weeks at a time, participates at a deep level, and then takes a three-month break.

 

[RegenWaiting]

This thread has become everything that I wanted it to be and more!

Will chime in later when I'm off. Damn it's hard not to be able to contribute in real time

 

[JeanLucBB]

The world can't re-allocate a couple million Syria refugees without major upheavals.

Imagine if 200 million Bangladeshis lose their home.

The rates of temperature fluctuations aren't more extensive than other periods over the last 2000 years. We are barely above the median of the past 2000 years. The rate of warming decreased significantly from 2000 to 2015 despite the rapid increase in emissions. The modelling isn't open source and their predictions of temperature movements have been horrifically inaccurate. Antarctic sea ice was growing during a period NASA predicted massive declines. 95% confidence intervals of temperature trends and the actual change falling completely out of their predicted bands. Does anyone care? Apparently not, because "consensus".

The arguments never regard the actual data, or predictions, but modelling that isn't open source or available to the general public and appeal to authority fallacies. Thousands of scientists support the Paris agreement, under which there are no legitimate penalties, negligible nations have set targets and under which China is set to double emissions over the next twenty years and India three times. Is there some sort of mystical genius to supporting an agreement which objectively does nothing to curb emissions, or are these scientists legitimately incompetent virtue signallers? Either way it doesn't matter, because no government of a major polluter has been able to or has a plan for drastic cuts to emissions. It will not happen. Ever.

I would be more sympathetic to their clearly fallacious interpretations of data and historically failing modelling if they offered solutions, but asking for government handouts, carbon credits, taxes, climate change financial derivatives, aid funds, the general public not making the slightest change in their emissions through more economical cars or general electricity use for example, and ultimately governments failing to cut emissions but succeeding in drastically increasing energy prices make it clear it is a farce.

It's a fat crock of sh*t. Sorry. Keep whining about something you and not a single government in the world has any control over though if it makes you feel better.

 

[JeanLucBB]

For those on the fence (Fred is just trolling at this point so I'll leave that discussion aside), I recommend you take a look at potholer54's videos. He has a good understanding of the science and a non-alarmist way of approaching the issue. A lot of the people deep into the weeds on this topic seem to be really depressed and distraught about the state of things, which I can understand but I don't think is a productive attitude to have. We should be doing all we can do and adapt to the changes resulting from the residual effects.

Try suggesting some solutions that don't involve increasing the price of energy or taxation to pay for your efforts. If you can't do it with free markets, it's because quite frankly people care enough about it to raise their voice and virtue signal, but not vote for change with their dollars. It isn't a serious issue.

 

[JeanLucBB]

The world can't re-allocate a couple million Syria refugees without major upheavals.

Imagine if 200 million Bangladeshis lose their home.

Temperatures have been hugely higher over the past 2000 years, the current rate of warming is consistent with previous warming over that period and not any faster and yet you're pretending there is a short term issue with climate refugees. I know you fantasize about Syrian and Bangledeshi scum overunning your country and voting for socialists, but it's not happening. Sorry.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Try suggesting some solutions that don't involve increasing the price of energy or taxation to pay for your efforts. If you can't do it with free markets, it's because quite frankly people care enough about it to raise their voice and virtue signal, but not vote for change with their dollars. It isn't a serious issue.

The free market argument is itself fallacious as the underlying carbon-based economy is not a free market. The history of war in the 20th century demonstrates that. The first world war is partly attributed to the Berlin-Baghdad railway, and in recent decades we've seen a lot of wars in Iraq, Libya, etc which are not a coincidence. The global financial markets rely on the US dollar as a reserve currency, which is itself backed by petroleum. The history of US economic development in the second half of the twentieth century is largely one of subsidies for suburban housing construction and highways, which are partly subsidies for the petroleum industry themselves.

It is ridiculous to bring up the free market religion as a supporting position here since there is no, and never has been, a free market supporting petroleum. Nor will there be a free market when the sh*t hits the fan and we're dealing with hundreds of millions of refugees, nor should there be for that matter.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Temperatures have been hugely higher over the past 2000 years,

Incorrect.

Temperatures have risen ~0.6 degrees since 1940, which is comparable to the increase in the prior 2000 years.

What you;'re doing is seeing the 0.6 degree shift twice and thinking that the rate of increase is the same, but you're neglecting to realize that one change is over 2000 years and the other is over 80 years. To get the rate of temperature increase, you have to divide by a time baseline.

 

[JeanLucBB]

The free market argument is itself fallacious as the underlying carbon-based economy is not a free market. The history of war in the 20th century demonstrates that. The first world war is partly attributed to the Berlin-Baghdad railway, and in recent decades we've seen a lot of wars in Iraq, Libya, etc which are not a coincidence. The global financial markets rely on the US dollar as a reserve currency, which is itself backed by petroleum. The history of US economic development in the second half of the twentieth century is largely one of subsidies for suburban housing construction and highways, which are partly subsidies for the petroleum industry themselves.

It is ridiculous to bring up the free market religion as a supporting position here since there is no, and never has been, a free market supporting petroleum. Nor will there be a free market when the sh*t hits the fan and we're dealing with hundreds of millions of refugees, nor should there be for that matter.

Would you kindly get fucked and cut the disingenuous BS.

"The global financial markets rely on the US dollar as a reserve currency, which is itself backed by petroleum."

Again you have zero understanding of what you're talking about and are quoting conspiracy theorists. You're talking to someone with a finance agree trying to act as if you are in on some magical understanding of fiat currency that doesn't exist in the real world.It is f*****g embarrassing.


"
Allocation of subsidies in the United States[edit]
On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

1. Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
2. Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
3. Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
4. Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

In addition, Dinan testified that the U.S. Department of Energy would spend an additional $3.4 billion on financial Support for energy technologies and energy efficiency, broken down as follows:

1. Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $1.7 billion (51 percent)
2. Nuclear energy: $0.7 billion (22 percent)
3. Fossil energy research & development: $0.5 billion (15 percent)
4. Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy: $0.3 billion (8 percent)
5. Electricity delivery and energy reliability: $0.1 billion (4 percent)[29"