Yeah that works up until a point. But once you hit a certain point, it’s not worth it anymore. Why should I log in and comment on anything if there’s a high chance I’ll receive abuse and nothing will be done about it? What’s the point then?

Just wait until you work out that it’s not actually the “he/hims” engaging in a specific behaviour, and that an equal amount of users with feminine or gender neutral pronouns engage in the same behaviour. That’s when it gets really nasty, from misgendering and accusations of internalised misogyny aimed at femme users (the second of which is already happening in this thread), and up to including public messages containing death threats and violent fantasties about murdering your family made from a network of alt accounts on another instance, because whoever said such was too much of a coward to do it on their main account.

Also profiling behaviour according to pronoun tags is foolish anyway. It opens up a whole new avenue to trolls and discourages honesty. If trolls are aware that the mod team is annoyed with “he/him” users, they can just cook up some accounts with that pronoun choice and inflame the situation. On the opposite end, trolls could pick “she/her” pronouns, say some vile stuff, and hide behind that. What is said is what should be judged, not the pronoun tags of who said it. Anyone can pick any pronoun tag. Lying on the internet is easy. Anyone can claim to be anything. I don’t know who anyone on here actually is, you don’t know who I actually am. The whole point of the pronoun tags was to have openness, honestly and to engage with others from different backgrounds and walks of life. That disappears if people think that their comments are going to be judged differently by the mod team based on what tag they pick.

I’m just commenting this as a warning for new users. I’ve been here since the beginning. Don’t engage with this nonsense. Actually just leave. It’s not worth it.

Joe Rogan was told Musk knew the election results 4 hours before anyone else

Okay and? In the election megathread users where pointing out that Harris had a slim chance of winning as the first results came out and showed Trump up in almost all counties by multiple percentage points compared to 2020. It’s just basic data analysis. If we can do that, whoever is working for Musk certainly can do the same.

The entire article is basically massive self own after massive self own. Seriously just read it. Capital L liberal nonsense.

Yeah the position a lot of people have on here with regards to birthrates, the position that Othello was calling out, where people think that if you improve “material conditions” more women will start having children, is just not compatible with reality.

In reality, the poorest countries with the worst education have the highest birthrates, while the wealthiest countries with good education have the lowest birthrates. I’ve also gotten into this in previous comments as well. As materialists, our positions should be based in reality and not vibes, and the reality is very clear on this.

It’s also ruining sports, the advertising is everywhere and extremely tacky, while contributing to the financial ruin of the poorest in society. If I see another HollywoodBets advert I will

Specifically, for every $1 spent on betting, households put $2 less into investment accounts. States see big increases in the risk of overdrafting a bank account or maxing out a credit card. These effects are strongest among already precarious households.

Fake society with fake finance. This is terrible.

Looking specifically at online sports gambling, they find that legalization increases the risk that a household goes bankrupt by 25 to 30 percent, and increases debt delinquency. These problems seem to concentrate among young men living in low-income counties—further evidence that those most hurt by sports gambling are the least well-off.

Yeah definitely. I see it all the time with soccer/football.

Matsuzawa and Arnesen extend this, finding that in states where sports betting is legal, the effect is even bigger. They estimate that legal sports betting leads to a roughly 9 percent increase in intimate-partner violence.

…

Legalization isn’t yielding many benefits, either. Tax revenue—one of the major justifications for legalization—has been anemic, with all 38 legal states combined making only about $500 million from it a quarter, less than alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana

Of course, these gambling operations are great at avoiding taxes, setting up their operation to be off shore on official paperwork, in office buildings that don’t exist.

I mean that’s what happens when Harris is the vice president of the administration currently carrying out genocide in Gaza. Harris also repeated misinformation about Hamas members/ Palestinian men sexually assaulting Israelis during October 7 during the last presidential debate. How are Muslim voters supposed to trust someone like that? Someone that repeats racist and Islamophobic lies about them and their Muslim brothers and sisters in Gaza. Someone actively part of a genocidal administration. Of course Muslims do not want to vote for Harris, and the reasons are very obvious.

Colonialists and fascists consider their animals lives to be more important than the lives of the non white people they colonise and oppress. Been happening since the dawn of colonialism. Hitler was infamously into animal welfare. There’s a ton of racism involved.

Going to pretend to be Sigmund Freud for a minute and try make sense of this:

in the annual poll conducted by IllicitEncounters, that brands itself “the best online dating site for married people”.

Okay that makes sense, Clarkson’s considered the sexiest man among middle aged adulterers that still use these niche sites. He’s rich, powerful (or gives off that impression) and older.

Meanwhile, Spider-Man actor Tom Holland secured the second spot in the UK’s sexiest man list, which coincides with his return to the West End.

Also makes sense, middle aged adulterers looking to relive their “glory days” and get with someone that looks much younger. The opposite of Clarkson.

The problem is all the F1 engineers are located in Europe. Unless this hypothetical Chinese team plans to try build an F1 car from first principles, they’re going to need a European base, likely in the UK, where most F1 teams are based. Then you also need an engine, current and future F1 engines are hybrid, both using ICE (internal combustion engine) and battery technology. The ICE part of the powertrain is one of the most advanced and thermally efficient petrol engines ever made. Over 50% thermal efficiency. So unless this hypothetical team plans to build one of the most advanced engines ever made from first principles, building an engine would require collaboration with a manufacturer with tonnes of experience with internal combustion engines and turbocharging. And that’s just the two most important pieces of the puzzle.

As you can see, getting an F1 team up and running is a very complicated business. And that’s before clearing the bureaucracy of the FIA and FOM. That’s where Andretti is struggling at the moment, as they are unconvinced by Andretti’s plans. No one wants another backmarker team.

Fist we had soy making you a woman, now it’s lentils lol

I’m not saying that he isn’t arguing for veganism, he obviously is. I’m just taking issue with the arguments made that there is something biologically innate to women that makes them more likely to be vegan. Benevolent sexism is still sexism at the end of the day. And I’d also say that the differences in social conditioning between men and women have a much larger role to play in this difference than anything inherently biological.

Maybe it’s one big ironic paragraph, but I don’t have a medium account so I can’t read the full piece.

Here is the full article, thanks to archive sites

https://archive.is/gC6V1

Have you actually read this article? It’s full of bio essentialist nonsense. There is even weird talk of chromosomes. It also states that vegan men are emasculated. It honestly reads like a vegan J.K Rowling wrote this.

One must ask, what accounts for this striking disparity? Is it that the gentler sex is simply more in tune with the moral and environmental imperatives of eschewing animal products? Or is there something more primal, more innate to the feminine psyche that draws women toward a plant-based lifestyle?

I would argue it is the latter. For women, the decision to go vegan is not merely a rational calculation, but an expression of their very nature — a nature that is more nurturing, more empathetic, more attuned to the suffering of the innocent. Men, by contrast, are driven by baser urges — a need to dominate, to consume, to assert their masculinity through the mastery of the animal kingdom.

This is not to say there are no vegan men. There are, of course, a few outliers — the sensitive souls, the intellectual elites, the emasculated sycophants who have traded their Y-chromosomes for a plate of lentils. But by and large, the vegan movement remains the domain of the fairer sex.

As Samir Amin summarises in Revolution from North to South:

The central reality of the imperialist character of historical capitalism implies an inescapable correlate: the long transition to socialism occurs through unequal advances, mainly originating in the peripheries of the world system. There is no “world revolution” on the agenda whose center of gravity would be found in the advanced centers. Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Castro understood that and accepted the challenge of “constructing socialism in one country.” Trotsky never understood that. The limits of what was achievable in these conditions, beginning with the heritage of the “backward” capitalism found in the peripheries, accounts for the later history of the twentieth century’s great revolutions, including their deviations and failures.

Quite simply, the Trotskyist hypothesis of permanent revolution is in opposition to the idea of socialism in one country, which Stalin, and most subsequent revolutions, have followed.

No we really do not. We need a new generation of materialists. Atheism is as much of an ideology as off is a TV channel. Atheism is just simply a lack of belief in any religion, it is not an ideology in of itself. Atheism is extremely limited when applied outside of that. You can see the limits of “atheism as an ideology” in the Christofer Hitchens vs Micheal Parenti debate, and in the failure of the new atheist movement, with a ton of new atheists becoming reactionaries and even calling themselves cultural Christians.

A new generation of “Reddit atheists” will just have all the same problems as the previous one, and end up with the same result.

There’s actually a silver lining here. The less that LGBT rights are associated with the US and the collective West, the better.

How though? Even cringe libertarians and politically non affiliated people in the West called out the media narrative surrounding Assad and the chemical weapons attacks.

Imagine being more wrong/to the right of a libertarian

They should keep that one in, it’s factually correct

Forest Gump for sure. I say it every time this topic comes up.

Going to be honest, the bottom right comment would probably be half of us lol. Finding the lectures cool, but struggling to pay attention and desperately wanting to move on to the main part of the course.