I had my son at 28, not by 24. Speedrun: FAILED.
Oh, and wrote my first novel at 50. Also FAILED, apparently.
A novelist?? What a disappointment! /s
(But seriously, congrats, that’s no easy feat!)
My ancestors are ashamed.
(And thanks. :) )
Rage bait…
Looked up this fool on social and you guessed it! He’s super cringe with his wannabe lifestyle posts.
Dude about to discover the “Male Loneliness epidemic”
Dude’s just trying to coerce 18*-24 year-olds into having sex with him.
It’s not very effective.
* Lets give him the benefit of the doubt.
And these same people who are MGTOW, or “men going their own way”, are obsessed talking shit about women.
it’s “look at me !! …I don’t need you ! … … look at meeeeee”
Right? If you have to tell people you’re alpha, you ain’t. Much less if you make it the only aspect of your personality.
Why does he want women to marry several kids?
the sleepy right’s agenda is only satiated with children
I think it’s good for people to have children. At least one and preferably no more than two.
If we contain population growth, the riches already created are for the taking for generations to come and the planet finally gets a rest.
It does require a reckoning with the capitalist elite that would like to produce anyway, but I feel that may be coming regardless of our feelings towards children.
No-one has any biological job. Live how you want.
Even if we had it, imagine how small your life is if you actually believe we are born to do a biological job.
I was put here to add carbon to the air and convert food into shit!
My job is to increase the entropy of the universe faster.
Imagine if we flipped the tables. If it’s all on women to have and raise kids and nothing more, wouldn’t that mean a man’s job is to get laid/donate sperm, impregnate someone once, and that’s it? If that’s all there is and he’s fulfilled his role, there’s no need to stay alive after that. Like a male bee, exploding after mating. Why bother with society, hobbies, learning and growing? OP’s “job” as a man is nothing more than to literally fuck off and die, mission complete.
Obviously I don’t believe that, just taking his argument to its logical conclusion. I’ve heard people say that women are just for making babies so many times in my life, but I’ve never heard men’s role put in the same terms.
It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous. We’re all so much more than our biological equipment. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, I just had to rant for a moment.
Unfortunately they’ll probably just say they are meant to be the masters of a harem and kill any potential rival males. Literally troglodyte shit
Then they should be starting a fight to the death with every man they encounter.
Best to make sure you’re armed and they are not when you reveal this to them.
I like that reasoning. If I had any toxic male friends saying shit like this I might use it, thanks!
Imagine if we flipped the tables. If it’s all on women to have and raise kids and nothing more, wouldn’t that mean a man’s job is to get laid/donate sperm, impregnate someone once, and that’s it? If that’s all there is and he’s fulfilled his role, there’s no need to stay alive after that. Like a male bee, exploding after mating.
Humans are not bees, you don’t rip some lazy bum’s dick off as a teen, use it to birth a town of sterile slaves that provide for your every need, and keep using that same sperm for years while birthing over a million babies throughout your life.
From an evolutionary perspective you’re successful if you have more children, that have reached breeding age, than the average. Humans today have a pretty good chance of survival no matter if they have both parents of not, so the only factor in that equation is how many children you can make.
So if you actually flip the tables, the man’s job in the developed world is to make as many babies, and if he makes less than 3 he’s a failure. And they should feel lucky because the guys in Niger/Sudan need to make like 15 or 20 (8-12 is the average).
If you want an animal metaphor instead, think of those jungle birds that spend 99% of their waking time working on breeding (bowyer fe).
Why bother with society, hobbies, learning qand growing?
And following that logic: to make more children to a wide variety of women. Men will literally learn something about every band just so they can hit up women with band merch.
It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous. We’re all so much more than our biological equipment. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, I just had to rant for a moment.
It sounds ridiculous, it is ridiculous for humans, but that exact process is why we’re able to choose not to breed.
Unless of course you’re a biologist
I disagree.
I have a biological imperative to turn garbage food into poop.
I mean, it’s a job, you can quit any time you want.
it’s not a good idea to quit…
Jaicilgin: literally hasn’t done shit
Based on this evidence, I’d counter that he has ONLY done shit.
That’s his biological job
Blessed with glorious purpose.
Tired of these see what the moron said reposts. All they do is promoting the moron.
Don’t feed the trolls aka don’t take the engagement bait.
I don’t like this logic. It implies that a person’s value depends on their achievements. The only difference between the two is what the most important achievements are. Ultimately, this reinforces the right-wing logic that there are people of different values.
It’s two people paying for premium at X. What do you expect 😐
Synthesis: All man is created equal, except those who give money to the richest man in the world for a louder voice on a nazi forum.
I thought that was Threads.
I would say starting an argument from a point of view which the other is guaranteed to agree with is a great tool to convince people.
In this case it’s pretty obvious that people who say shit like “women only exist to bare children” will also look up to people with great achievements to their name. As such these two beliefs can be played against eachother.
If it won’t convince the original bum saying the stupid, it will be a very spectacular way to disarm their logic in front of other people with similar but not so extreme opinions.
Sure, but it still reinforces the neoliberal view of humanity and ideology by affirming them. And what about all the millions of women who have not made any great scientific or other achievements and never will that did not have children by the age of 24? Have they then indeed failed in life?
In capitalism you must breed or make profit, nothing else is worthwhile.
I’m one of those women and: Yes. What’s he gonna do about it? I’m out here being a happy little failure, living rent free in the minds of alpha bros everyehere.
Agreed. Don’t try logic. Tell them to “shut the fuck up, you turd”
but there are people of different values.
for example, people who think others are not worth much are themselves worthless.
Karl popper just started spinning in his grave
But all people aren’t of equal worth. There isn’t an official arbitrator but we get to decide for ourselves, and there isn’t a much better way to evaluate them than their actions.
The “all men created equal” in the… US consitution or declaration or whatever is complete nonsense.
Edit: I do think everyone should be born with equal rights and should be given opportunities to be healthy and happy. I didn’t think the “created” part through, and meant that people aren’t “destined” to be equal, their actions separate them. Sorry about that last part.
Declaring people to have a certain value relative to each other strikes me as uncomfortably close to treating people as things.
I don’t understand why only things can have different values. People have different impact on the environment, the world, etc. and what you value determines their worth on that scale. If everything is equally important to you, good or evil, then i guess everything and everyone can have the same value? I don’t really understand this paradigm.
What I’m saying is that it suggests uncomfortable things about the ethical framework in which whoever is making the valuations is operating. Not because of any specific valuation schemas, but because reducing people to numbers (values) is inherently dehumanizing.
I’m not saying that there aren’t terrible people who do terrible things. But any ethical framework or decision that dehumanizes people I would consider inherently unethical.
That is a capitalist, neoliberal attitude at best. It is particularly popular in the USA, where children are taught to evaluate reality in quantitative terms. It is extremely important for US capitalism to promote this view of humanity, because it legitimizes the major social hierarchies in this society. It also legitimizes why children are allowed to go hungry, the poor are denied medical care, and other countries are exploited. After all, they are not worth it, otherwise they would not be in this situation. In the worst case, it is therefore the basis for right-wing ideology in the USA.
But ultimately, it is a normative decision that everyone makes for themselves. I cannot convince you with arguments. If you believe that people are fundamentally worth different amounts, then probably no argument can convince you otherwise. I can only say that I am glad not to have anyone like you in my circle.
I am not sure where anything i said means quantitative evaluation. I despise capitalism, but people’s actions do have impact and i am free to evaluate them on such. For example, my measurement could be the altruism and positive impact of their actions. You have jumped to some very negative conclusions and i am glad i don’t have you in my circle.
Edit: in addition, i never said anything about “fundamentally” being worth different amounts. I very specifically said actions are a good way to determine their value. There is nothing fundamental or intrinsic about that.
Edit 2: Wait, I see it now, sorry. It’s the all men created equal part. I do think everyone should be born with equal rights and should be given opportunities to be healthy and happy. I’ll make an amendment to the original comment. I didn’t think the “created” part through, and meant that people aren’t “destined” to be equal, their actions separate them.
People grow, contribute, and succeed on their own timelines. There’s no single deadline for a meaningful life.
Well no… There is a deadline, it’s called death.
Basically anytime before that is preferable really.
Just throwing it out there, that scientific discoveries can be done by married mothers as well
Also, if you’re not married with kid at 24 as a dude, you failed.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume ‘Jaicilgin’ failed.
Man, I hope he failed.
I hope he never stopped failing
I’d guess someone with that mentality started making crotch spawn at 16 or 17, perpetuating a genetic line that will continue to be about as useful to society as an indoor kite. The Stupid breed like rabbits.
Marie Curie was, in fact, a married mother when she did the work that earned her two Nobel Prizes in separate fields.
Related: Gertrude Bell, mountain climber, archaeologist and overall badass british lady that helped shape the middle east post WW1. Despite being a woman, she managed to earn the respect of several nomad arab tribes, you know, those that see women as a man’s property? Those. To the point that, when she died, they all came to her burial and ensured she was treated like a queen.
A very good, 3h17m doc on her life - https://youtu.be/anjha4JNAWg
Welp. Seems I’ve already failed at life. Can’t go any lower than that. Guess I’ll just go live how I want now.
Lol. Lucky you.
Listen, power to women, and Vera Rubin’s work was amazing and she deserves every praise.
But nobody has ever proven the existence of Dark Matter. What’s proven is that our current mathematical models do not accurately represent the universe due to the way things move and effects of gravity, under our current understanding, requiring a large amount of mass that we have not observed.
Does that make sense? It could be that our models or understandings are just wrong, or it could be that there is some magical unobservable matter, but we don’t know. We haven’t proven anything.
The reason I think this is important is because we keep throwing money at bigger and bigger dark matter detection chambers, and we keep operating on the possibly incorrect assumption of dark matter while we create new theories.
What’s proven is that our current mathematical models do not accurately represent the universe due to the way things move and effects of gravity
This is actually the bit that Vera Rubin discovered. The summary of her discovery in the quote is the issue :)
That’s… What finitebanjo said?
Originally, banjos post read like the line about Vera Rubin was outright incorrect, rather than simply being a case of the OP in the image making a poor summary of her contributions.
It sounded like Banjo was challenging Vera’s relevance in the list, rather than clarifying what she actually did
I would not make praising her the opening statement of my comment if I were challenging her contributions.
Broadly, what you said was “Power to her, but what’s proven is that our current mathematical models do not accurately represent the universe”. The “but” in that statement is that issue, as it sounds like you’re challenging her findings with a correction, but your correction was just to summarise her actual findings
Her achievment is proving the current mathematical models do not represent the universe and explaining why, where many men before her utterly failed.
Her achievment is not proving the existence of dark matter.
The “but” is very warranted and I honestly feel like the “dark matter is real” zealots are the ones besmirching her name by misrepresenting her accomplishments.
What I’m getting at is that your “but” made it sound like you were challenging her findings, rather than images incorrect summary of her findings.
Nope.
Yes, it was.
The reason I think this is important is because we keep throwing money at bigger and bigger dark matter detection chambers, and we keep operating on the possibly incorrect assumption of dark matter while we create new theories.
Okay, Sabine, whatever you say. I’m sure bubble chambers and TPCs (I assume since you’re targeting “chambers” that other experiments like DEAP are fine) for direct detection are a catastrophic money sink that you’re totally not exaggerating even a little.
Edit: Wait, are you specifically targeting the funding for the search for WIMPs? Since you’re just joining us from your 15-year coma, I’m afraid to inform you that problems have gotten much worse for science than bubble chamber and TPC costs.
A theory from a famous SF book I just read (not gonna say the title, not to spoil): dark matter is the matter that has collapsed into a smaller spatial dimension (2 or 1)
How would you go about proving the existence of regular matter?
I think therefor I am, I guess.
How do you know you’re made of matter?
Matter describes what exists.
So, dark matter is matter?
Dark matter has never been proven to exist.
The only matter you’ve proven to exist is your own consciousness, so that’s not saying much.
Since you’ve defined matter to be everything that exists, you must believe that whatever is the explanation for dark matter is matter, since it exists.
This doesn’t even make sense from a (pretty stupid) “you have to have children” point of view, what is stopping women to have kids later in life, when they’ve got an education, know what they want in life, and are financially and mentally stable enough to raise them?
Of course I know the answer starts with “m” and ends with “isogyny”, but it’s a very stupid take even in its own framework
Well.
You see. J-douche up there? He likes ‘em young and thinks every guy does, too.
what is stopping women to have kids later in life
Menopause.
But anyway, it’s generally a good idea to have children earlier, because you’ll get to spend more time with them and you won’t be the weird old parent in the school. Also health reasons and whatnot.
As for misogyny, I think it’s mostly from one generation to the next and also more often women to women. Most guys that I know would rather postpone having children as long as possible for the same reasons that you’ve stated.
Menopause doesn’t hit before the 40s or so. Plenty of women have children in their 30s. At that point, they have had time to mature, get an education, and build stable circumstances to raise children. Yes, the consequences of the industrial revolution and so on, but those consequences also basically eradicated the child mortality we had before, for instance.
If someone knows they want a family early, good for them, but I don’t blame anyone wanting to experience life before passing it on.
No doubt. I’m glad I had my 20s to roam around before getting kids, but I’m even more happy to still be young enough that I can travel the world and participate in physical activities with my kids as well. Having kids doesn’t have to mean giving up on experiencing life. They’re part of it, and they’re the best people to share it with. In hindsight, I probably could have cut my party years short by five years without missing a thing. Having kids was the best thing in my life. It might not be for everybody.
I’m in the late 40s now, and I feel it’s too late to have more by now. I know people who do in that age. Divorced couples going for the late common child or DINKs who finally made enough money. It looks really tough for them. It’s temporarily hard work for a couple of years. It’s hard if you’re young and don’t have money, but it’s also hard when you’re old and less agile and physical on top.
Ok, now listen to me. Please, PLEASE, never again say something like
it’s a very stupid take even in its own framework
You never know who’s reading this and I guarantee you that there is always someone ready to take that as a personal challenge.
I mean, I can always decide to argue with someone who seems to disagree but is willing to stick to the rules as argue in good faith. Who knows, maybe one or both of us can learn something. Likewise, I can always decide that someone is so far gone that there’s no point. But to categorically avoid any argument that sounds stupid is not helpful.
Those people are like that because a) they are genuinely bad people, b) they are fueling the fire on purpose, and c) nobody ever convinced them they are stupid.
To not let the a) and b) win, yes, we need to convince people that what they heard is wrong.
Sometimes I do enjoy making conclusions from stupid and insane premises, can be a fun little thinking exercise. There seems to be a little devil’s advocate in my head.
