@ellasbooktwt@cranley_john@Evil_Cangrejo@Thatlos1@fawnellaa If true, were you to manage to achieve it, all you've done is diminish the credential. I am not claiming that you cannot read baselessly. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of comprehending what you read. It's independently verifiable in this comment chain
@ellasbooktwt@cranley_john@Evil_Cangrejo@Thatlos1@fawnellaa That doesn't imply literacy. There are students at Harvard that are functionally illiterate. You have been pattern matching this entire time, rather than actually responding to what has been said. You haven't actually read a single thing I've said. Ergo, you cannot read.
It is like you simply refuse to engage honestly. Interesting. "Word salad" refers to a bunch of words that are semantically unintelligible. Each of the words I used exist in the comments because they were the precise word needed to convey what I was trying to say. At this point, I do not believe you can read (in other words, you are functionally illiterate). This is the only reason I can think of as to why you would continue your unsupported assertions as opposed to just understanding the plain English words in front of your face.
Further, there was a situation where a friend met a woman who had been seeing somebody for a few months and had been "getting serious" and after the first night of meeting my friend, all of that went out of the window, had sex in the club bathroom of all places. They've been married for 6 years.
Like I get what you're trying to set up, but real life doesn't work that way. You need individual discernment from situation to situation.
Who knows? It depends.
I've met women for the first time out at bars (so not even a real date, because it's not like we planned to meet) and had those women lay their souls bare, and those have ended in sex within some hours. I've also gone on many dates with one woman and didn't have much connection despite having pretty good conversations, but also not too deep. Serviceable.
@FeralJesus@MichaelSLinden Nobody ever bothers asking the question whether it's even a good idea to maintain a program that demands infinite growth (the critique commies often levy at capitalism, but is broadly characteristic of social welfare programs instead, so a political construction).
@FeralJesus@MichaelSLinden Essentially, the estimate assumes that high wage earners wouldn't just restructure their compensation packages if they are subject to payroll taxes in order to avoid the increased taxes beyond the cap. But of course they would do that. So, this is likely just politheater.
The irony of not understanding probabilistic credence setting, yet calling other people "dumdum".
It is not simply the topic that flags the accounts as engagement farmers, its: topic + location + framing + preoccupation with a singular genre + random attractive white young female photo that has the probability of the OP approaching 1.0. Each of these have their own prior probability of belonging to an engagement farmer, but low on their own. Together? Much, much higher.
1. He wrote that as a cardinal, not the Pope.
2. He was comparing three European liberal models and compared democratic socialism favorably to the others. Notably, neither of the European models he was evaluating were the American model, which he evaluates separately.
You are intelligent enough to be aware of the impression your framing engenders, so, in my view, accusing you of dishonesty would not be uncalled for. On that note:
It's pretty important to realize that paternal (whether it be for the mother as maternity leave or gender neutral) leave isn't a family-friendly policy. The goal of these policies is to maximize market labor participation, and they are structured towards this end. If you're not trying to play that game, because you realize that a division of household labor between market and non-market labor is simply just better (and can be done on lower incomes than people often assume); you still need to answer the question of "who does which?"
If either of us trusted our parents to do a decent enough job, the people doing the non-market labor would have been our parents, as is the case in many multi-generational households, as has been the norm throughout human history. However, this has not been the case, so we have adopted a nuclear family model with my wife deciding (despite my protests) that she ought to be the one staying home to do the non-market labor.
This doesn't actually address anything I said. I live in Germany atm, there is mandated paternal leave here. Men still return to work faster than women, and women are still more likely to not return to the workforce than men after having children.
Since women have already stayed home longer, it becomes more practical for them to continue staying home if the family has determined that the trade-off of missing time actually being able to raise their kids and also manage the household more easily is not worth it. This is what I'm talking about. I flagged this by talking about it 'calcifying' into becoming a SAHP arrangement, which was consistent with either parental leave or no parental leave.
I'm saying that the biological reality tends to result in women being the SAHP more often than the father, who typically ends up in that situation because they cannot work, as opposed to it being decided upon as a family unit (this does happen as well, just less).
That isn't how this mechanism works. Males in other species are less picky about how their mates look, so the females do not end up looking particularly interesting. In species where males are somewhat picky (like in humans, contrary to popular belief), females tend to start to look different based on what the males use as selection criteria over (a very very long) time. Similarly, males of a given species tend to exemplify more and more what females in aggregate have sexually selected the males for.
So essentially, females look the way they do because males like them looking that way or are indifferent to how they look; and males end up looking the way they do because females either like them looking that way or are indifferent towards how they look. The males and females of a species shape each other.
@tonywestonuk@Grope_of_Big That should give you your first clue that what you consider 'capitalism' may not, in fact, be real. "Capitalism" as a term was adversarially defined by Socialists/Communists, but the underlying principle of the system described existed for thousands of years prior.
It is "somewhat or very difficult" for me to afford food as well, as prices for food have gone up tremendously (especially in Germany, like holy fucking shit, it's absurd, I'm about to start eating canned food exclusively), and it makes it hard for me to justify consuming the same types of food I did in 2020, when food was much cheaper. I am not actually struggling to afford food. I am struggling to afford the type of food I would prefer to eat (and notably, my only frame of reference for this is Germany, because I haven't been back to the US to compare).
About 12.5% of Americans are on food stamps. This is not, under any coherent understanding the "average" American.
@cmdruupg@sapphyreblayze When I talk about income, I'm talking about real income. There's no point talking about increased income if it's eaten away by inflation. Sometimes, I even consider my annual raises a pay cut.
"Living paycheck to paycheck" isn't a credible metric.
https://t.co/37goQrlEcq
@cmdruupg@sapphyreblayze Except, the last time I was living in America, I made almost exactly the median income, and my QoL was about the same as it is now, when I'm making 60% more income. Hell, I even broke my leg the last year I was living in America and needed medical care. Still, same.