@revenant_MMXX It's downstream of Christian churches' contradictory gender ideology. It's unsustainable for men and women to have different moral roles, where men are the leaders and women the followers, while also being equal as images of God. Practically, something gives, usually the former.
It is not. Women's selectiveness is a lagged indicator of what was better under previous conditions. When unconstrained by the same environment and survival constraints, that selectivity will be dysgenic for a few generations until it adapts by selection.
@TriScaleArt@revenant_MMXX That's mature of you.
I'm curious as to what those issues were, and how you became convinced that the truth was different than your gut raction?
@TriScaleArt@revenant_MMXX Sure, it's better to figure things out than blindly follow, but, still, defaulting to a "neutral" stance, despite historical evidence before economic surplus, no biological incentive to support genuine productivity, and laws enforcing equality seems to fly in the face of that.
@TriScaleArt@revenant_MMXX It's not that complex; economics is made complicated intentionally. Money is just a credit on the utility of others. If one's income minus taxes is still more than the utility they provide, say because of equal pay laws/EEoC, are they really being taxed, or is someone else?
@TriScaleArt@revenant_MMXX In a physical sense, sure, but women don't produce abundance; their incomes are largely redistributive from male labor. Take a woman's job and compare her income to an equivalent amount of food, housing, and necessary goods, and ask if she's producing that much value.
@qorprate I have yet to see a genuine and comprehensive assessment of "cost vs. benefit" by these so-called "technocommentariat"; they seem unable to expand on any argument, relying on premises they cannot justify. You're giving them far more credit than deserved with this argument.
@Patrick80122519@Devon_Eriksen_ That women's response, unconcerned with justice and vicariously emoting like a collective, mandates restricting certain freedoms that can only be maintained by people acting on higher principles.
OP not getting this is further evidence she can't do this, and so shouldn't vote.
@kitten_beloved@mauddweeb Would you describe it like seizing slimy jelly?
Do you view this behavior as "essentially harmless" as well? Or like abusing AI, does it reflect something deeper?
@trumpbloodbath@ItIsHoeMath Because the contention doesn't practically matter. Even the ones you mentioned will argue in typical style that the issue is a matter of a "culture" that can be modified, rather than a genetic difference. They maintain the problem by elevating their group over what America needs.
@IterIntellectus Wait, you aren't trolling?
Humans can't even seem to make the right decisions regarding the economy, instead relying on the invisible hand to make the statistically correct decision. And you seriously believe that humans will not overlook something when making genetic decisions?
@fredsoda Note that "winning" this struggle would be pyrrhic, and America would be better served in the long term by instead investing in physical capital. However, our elites have little utility in these domains, and so we drudge on a losing path to maintain their financial status.
@fredsoda Because of military and petrodollars, the dollar maintains leverage and allows for cheap imports, by which America's economy subsists. China's AI threatens America's leverage, due to military potential and America's desire for global dependency on its AI, and so its dep. economy.
@Robin_Hood1555@ChristianHeiens Welfare is certainly the clearest side, but the spread relies on US's reserve currency status maintained by our massive military. The leverage this offers gives Americans the illusion that their jobs are useful to their neighbors, despite our massive trade deficit and debt.
@Robin_Hood1555@ChristianHeiens People, however, are not be ready for the absolute amount of violence that would result due to true freedom of association, which would require abolition of state's monopoly on force. Many, if not most, people are dependent on the state prohibiting their exclusion to survive.
@satellitedown@solomonsd21 Surely, you mean more expensive?
What's actually getting cheaper, or at the very least more affordable relative to income? Food? Housing? Energy?
And, if we were to otherwise grant this, then how are you determining it's the most responsible? Via counterfactual?
"Right". The word here ought be entitlement, of which rights are a specific, more objectively justified form.
Sure, healthcare could be a temporary entitlement if we so decided, but would likely have the opposite effect long term, and so not objectively justifiable.
@BiologicalWoma2 A human right is whatever we collectively decide it is a human right.
If most of the civilized world collectively decided that healthcare IS a Human Right, it IS.
If you don't pick up on this, the words "oppressed" and "again" were still chosen despite the explicitly stated justification of this treatment.
This should give everyone an idea of how the treatment of women is anchored subconsciously.
centuries from now when women are actually being oppressed again and they start asking why
they will have digital evidence proving most are mentally and emotionally unfit for society