Youtube comments of Liam (@1495978707).
-
1100
-
333
-
155
-
131
-
103
-
102
-
99
-
94
-
86
-
67
-
65
-
65
-
62
-
60
-
59
-
55
-
53
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
40
-
38
-
37
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
You don't understand either way. The tax is still paid by the consumer, as the tax is just passed onto you. The point of tax reduction is for the amount you pay in taxes to be less. The problem is how little you are making, not how much they are. Plus, inordinate tax and regulatory burdens secure the positions of bad wealthy employers who can afford to pay the toll, and keeps out newcomers who would give competition. Who fucking cares how much bezos makes anyway? You still give him money regardless, because the service provided by his company is just that valuable to you. The problem is that you can't afford to buy what you need and want. One of the primary costs in rent is property tax, every way you get nickel and dimed by taxation, directly or indirectly, leads to even the poorest among us giving up around half our income to the government. Can you imagine how big of a difference it would make to even earn 50% more? Just because the government was trimmed down, not through having to work any harder or whatever else. Also government spending is a primary driver of inflation, which acts as a regressive tax. Y'all are so myopically focused on jealousy for the rich, and punishing them, that you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot to give them a papercut
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
3:10 The thing is, the ecosystem in that part of california depends on regular wildfires. Like the entire reason redwood populations are tanking is because we stop these fires from happening. The fires were there before anyone moved there, but people move there because... the weather's usually nice? This is like moving into the savanna, getting attacked by lions, getting mad that there's lions, and wanting to kill the lions instead of putting up fences and such or just moving away. It sucks that this is happening, but it's no secret that southern california has regular large wildfires and homes get lost every time even when they are prepared. Finland obviously has a different ecosystem that doesn't rely on wildfires, because even without people there interfering, fires weren't big or common there. So, yeah, duh, it's not such a big problem there.
6
-
6
-
5:55 She doesn't realize that by merely existing, eatkng, drinking, using electricity, internet, sewer, trash, maintenance of the roof over her head... she is taking value from other people. If she is not doing her part, providing value to others in some way, she is a literal leech. It's one thing for people to be put out of comission by illness or disability or accident, etc, they can't help it. But this is brat behavior, expecting to leech her whole life.
Remember how harris campaigned on promoting brat behavior?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As for the submissive thing, I get your point, but it's kind of for lack of a better word. If you get final say on those things, what else would you call it? You could maybe say cooperative, but to many women out there, this could still sound like no one has final say. What else would you call her trusting your judgement to steer the ship? I understand submission has negative connotations. The message is that a ship with two captains is chaos. Even in a plane with two pilots, you have a captain and a copilot. The captain has final say on important decisions. Would you not say that the copilot needs to submit to that leadership? It is a consensual relationship, the copilot chose to be there, and understands that's what the nature of the thing would be. When submission is used here, we don't mean tolerance of abuse or something like that. Perhaps a better word would be "deferential". But do you expect people to know that word? There's something to be said for memes that use simple language. They spread easier, despite lack of precision. Something that must be understood is that we are fighting a culture change. We've accepted the rotting away of culture long enough because we know things just change over time, but now we notice leaks in the hull, and if we do not repair those, this ship is going to sink. All the while people are either denying the leaks or saying that the leaks are good because we need water or whatever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
7:52 A politician promising to not do something in order to gain support is certainly to be taken at his word...
Also, as someone else said in the comments, everyone has a different notion of "socialism". Like, for example, how our cronyism riddled neoliberal system in the USA is often referred to as "socialism for the rich".
Per Marx, socialism is the stage after capitalism where the government seizes private property to be "held in common", and people are indoctrinated into the cause. The hypothesis is that this will eventually obviate the need for a government and it will just shed away leaving his vision of communism, which is by now clearly a fantasy.
Did not the Nazis seize private property to be held by the state? Did the Nazis not indoctrinate the people into their cause?
Sure, they didn't seize all means of production and private property. But this is how socialism works in practice: the people in power apply policy of seizure, redistribution, taxation and spending in order to secure their power and benefit their pals. Because this always happens, this leads to the claim that "real" socialism has never been tried. Just because it doesn't go down the way Marx wanted it to. In fact, Hitler appreciated Marx's vision, but was frustrated at its failure to materialize.
An open party platform of policies that are "good for workers" and doing back room dealings with powerful people is classic real world socialism. The only way that this isn't socialism is if you take it to only mean the pipe dream of Marx.
Someone else in the comments said "our textbooks even say they weren't socialist". Yes, because academia is infested with Marxists and postmodernists, who are interested in promulgating apologia for socialism. This should be clear even just by observing that self proclaimed communist/socialist countries killings vastly more people than the fascists did, yet we all remember 6 million. I didn't even learn about the holodomor until way after grad school, and out of everyone I've asked in my life, everyone knows about the holocaust, and almost no one knows about the holodomor.
If it's still not clear how this is part of apologia, trace back the history of our modern day postmodernism through the frankfurt school and Gramsci.
Another thing to consider: squabbling over whether the nazis were left vs right wing is just a lazy attempt to bypass thinking and sling crap at opponents. A la "everything I don't like or disagree with is Hitler". The notion of what is right or left was vastly different then as opposed to now, and american politics has always been different from european, primarily because of the federalism debate. We should judge policies by merit, logical analysis, and evidence, not by emotions and provenance. Most people just want a quick answer and to know who to vote for though, because politics is exhausting to obsess over.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who woulda thunk, corporations and politicians working together to dilute labor costs and exploit people by letting people come across the border with reckless abandon. Those people are super easy to exploit. This is yet another reason to heavily restrict migrants coming in. If they're a small number, it's easier to manage them and harder to exploit them at scale. Plus it makes wages here higher for the people who are already here. We are not the saviors of the world anyway. You also need to understand that the reason these children are even being sent here is because of an attempt at compassion. This is a very common thing in progressive politics. See people suffering, we need to help them, don't think about knock on effects, suffering still happens anyway. All we did is encourage the breakup of families and give ourselves far more orphans than we could possibly manage properly.
The obvious response to what I just said is: "why can't we just let them all in?". And the response to that is: "I thought you were upset about wage stagnation and cost of living increases, right?". Helping people, while good, is not free. And not every cost comes in the form of income tax. Every choice has an opportunity cost. If you don't like basic necessities costing so much labor to afford, you have to realize that the labor pool has swollen considerably, while local consumption (which would pay local wages) is not growing to match. Rapid change of any kind, including growth, causes instability. Doubly so when the growth comes increasingly from broken families.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Becoming better" isn't even a well defined action for them. For example: a woman may say that she wants to have equal say in every decision in a relationship, but then recoil away from men who don't assert their leadership. She'll say that she wants to earnt he same as men, but then be mad at the lack of "economically viable" men (translation: men that earn more than her). The whole problem is that women are instinctively hard to satisfy, which comes from bearing the higher reproductive burden. And the mind virus of feminism exploits that by making women dissatisfied with their own desires, tendencies, and proclivities, and the same for men. So they are stirred up into perpetually being unhappy because they are battling against nature, and men, trying to be good to women and make them happy, try to satisfy the schizo wants and demands to our own detriment.
Listening to what feminists claim is "better" is what got us into this mess, so it certainly won't get us out. We have to do what's good because it's good, not because women want us to do it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
#2 There’s also that clip you showed recently of a woman asking why she’s never seen a man she knows cry, and she cries every day, it’s a part of her routine, so she just can’t understand it. I do think however that it’s important to be clear and say that men tend to be better leaders, because sometimes women do have the traits for it. What is funny about this is that almost any time a woman hears about women being more emotional than men, her reaction will be emotional, almost compulsively so. And they’ll say that it’s only because you’re being mean and misogynistic. Well guess what, good leaders don’t need to be told that they’re good and deserve their position, and quite often have to deal with people who are very unkind to them and still keep their cool. That is like one of the most important traits of a good leader, someone who is unperturbed by the bullshit of others. Many feminists will say that that is only because the patriarchy has defined it that way or some crap like that when confronted with this reality, and after that conversation go right back to believing that women are not any more emotional than men are. And somehow they think that being emotional helps you make good decisions? Do they not understand why we don’t let doctors operate on family, cops investigate family?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What’s interesting is that despite supply and demand impacting price is like basic knowledge everyone knows, governments seem to think that artificially restricting supply will make drug use go away. Instead, it makes it much more profitable to engage in production, and makes producers especially violent. This doesn’t reduce demand significantly; if reduction in consumption is the desire, you need to address the demand, not the supply. Without demand, supply will wither. But that doesn’t mean imprisoning drug users, which is the easy way out that hurts more than it helps, it means addressing the material conditions that drive people to use drugs. Also, a reflection on why the government is so interested in curtailing drug use. If it were about public health, wouldn’t the government do anything about the worst addiction in this country, sugar?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s simple, but if you aren’t deep into the history, you may not know. This is Gramsci’s contribution to the Marxist tradition. That every space must be invaded with politics, and that the culture must be denigrated, so people will be more willing to participate in a revolution. Remember, that is the goal of Marxism: undergo a socialist revolution, after seizing control and the means of production, make ownership communal somehow, re-educate people on the communist mission, communism will just happen and the government will magically dissolve as it is no longer needed.
Hitler and Gramsci were both frustrated by the failure of Marxism to inspire a revolution, but their solutions were different
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
#2 she’s so close, but she just won’t admit that this problem is almost entirely up to women. Almost every young man goes through the experience of being rejected and invisible, and seeing girls go for players. Literally everyone knows the “nice guys come last” meme at this point. Young men expect that young women would like to be treated nicely, and that just being your awkward self is enough because being genuine is what should matter right? Most men have to go through this rude awakening of realizing that is not at all a good mental model for how most women behave, become jaded at the grotesque reality, and refuse to engage in anything that might look like a committed relationship, because get this, even a boyfriend can be forced to lose assets and pay his woman if she gets tired of him. Men aren’t afraid of commitment, they’re afraid of women not being able to hold to their commitment. We’re hopefully getting back on the right track with the bill in Florida to eliminate permanent alimony. Women, if you want men to treat you like more than an object to relieve desire, you have to be part of advocating for your value as anything more than that. The cost and probability of harm with commitment is just far too high at this point for anyone except an idiot to pay it
What she is suggesting is only going to make things worse, and not help anyone. By her own stats, the majority of men don’t want a relationship. The only thing women like her can do is their best to help a man trust her, and campaign for men’s rights
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would prefer to say “you can believe whatever you want about me, I’m not here to prove myself to you, answer the question”. I’m not conceding her claim, if she wants her claim accepted, she’s gonna have to back it up, and it makes very clear that this conversation is about listening to her. If she wants to make the conversation about proving you’re a sexist when you’re not, that’s fine. I’m not going to go out of my way to defend myself because of feelings, simply saying I don’t care what you think about me, that’s not what we’re here for. Stop being driven by your emotions, engage your brain, and answer the question, don’t read from a rehearsed script.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
14:30 No, not always. About a third of people are deficient in Vitamin D, and vitamin D is harder to get because you either need sun or a large supplement dose, because our bodies are terrible at absorbing it. You also don’t want to just take it in a multivitamin, you want to get it in oil capsules and ideally take it with a meal, which promotes absorption.
I say this as someone who literally got blood tested and prescribed Vitamin D by my doctor, and this info came largely from him (with follow up literature review to double check).
Point is, deficiencies are more common than you think.
Also, you can be deficient even if you have enough in your diet. For example, you can deplete your thiamine if you have a lot of carbs in your diet, and that can contribute to fatigue symptom.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The beautiful thing about linux is that it's out there, exists, and will forever, for anyone to freely use. And the really hard work has been done already to make usable operating systems out of it, by many independent teams. So even if every distro got shutdown somehow, or all the maintainers left or whatever other catastrophic scenario you can imagine, people can just pick up where they left off. When a proprietary organization goes under, the software dies with it. When they decide to stop supporting software, they can make it impossible to use or obtain, and if anyone wants to compete, they have to start from scratch. But that's not necessary with operating systems because there's so many open source ones
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason many men are reluctant about couple’s counseling I don’t think is because of feeling inferior at making a case, it’s because you feel like the counselor, who most of the time is a woman, is going to be biased towards the woman, take her side. Productive couples counseling usually involves trying to change behavior, and this often ends up being one sided. Like “why don’t you do more housework?” And not to the woman “why don’t you see the value in what your man is doing for you?”
Consider that most of the time couple’s counseling is initiated by the woman, and why she would be initiating it. Is she doing it because she thinks a mediator would be mutually beneficial, or because it will give her more power to benefit herself?
Also consider this: as the man, how can the counselor help you? If you need therapy, you’d go to an individual therapist. If you’re lazy, you won’t want to go because you might have to change. If you’re actually fulfilling your role, then it’s the woman that needs counseling on how to feel ok about fulfilling hers
The most common complaint that I hear about that instigates couples counseling is that the man isn’t doing some of the woman’s role in addition to the man’s role. I never hear of counseling happening because the man doesn’t want to protect the woman or provide for her. Seems to me that most of the time it’s because the woman also wants to do some providing, and for both partners to both work and split chores down the middle. The man understands that specialization is more efficient, but also recognizes his woman’s wants and goes along with supporting them verbally, but then instead of focusing on working, he’s gotta spend his evenings doing things, and his woman’s gotta do that too, and so she’s always exhausted and doesn’t want to be intimate. It’s not generally about the woman feeling unsafe because the man isn’t getting the bills paid and keeping her safe
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
9:10 While all of those losses are present, the biggest reason that efficiency was poor early on is that they didn’t realize what Carnot did, which was that you can stop adding heat and let the heat convert into work, and save a lot of your energy. Steam locomotives have two levers for what we might think of as “throttle”, and that is the steam outlet valve, and the timing lever, which determined what fraction of the cycle the steam port was open in the cylinder. Decreasing this fraction allows for mor efficient operation, but can only really be done at speed. So, they’d have the timing lever on full open when starting, and use the steam outlet valve as the throttle, but once at speed, transition to having the outlet always maxed out and vary the timing lever. This way, you can get the necessary massive torque for starting, but also switch to a sort of economy mode once at speed
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3:10 Better tell the feminists about this girl, what she wants sounds like housewifery, and that’s not allowed these days! My god, why do women fight so hard to join this space that they hate being in so much? You’re allowed to just submit to a man and not have to be in the rat race. It’s not capitalism you dislike, it’s having to do what men do. Capitalism is how we have things like iPhones, fancy dishwashers and laundry machines, so much food that food addiction is a common problem, and the reason we have low wages is because we are flooding the labor market with immigrants and women who want to be independent boss babes. The reason a gender studies degree even exists is because of capitalism, because people are free to sell and buy generally whatever they like. It’s not capitalism’s fault that no one values a useless degree, it’s her fault for not caring about what other people value and expecting everyone else to pay for her mistakes, without even admitting that they’re mistakes. Nothing to do with capitalism, everything to do with lack of accountability
1
-
1
-
1
-
1