RULES
The Hub is moderated for decorum. Please follow these rules while participating in The Hub:
- Be courteous and friendly to new members.
- Do not attempt to scare off new users from using the platform.
- Do advertise your Tribes and invite users to join conversations in them.
- Always Follow Our Content Policy
These rules only apply to The Hub with the exception of the content policy which is site-wide. Please observe individual tribe rules when visiting other tribes.
Sick of Rules? Want to Shit-talk?
Join The Beer Hall
Want a FLAIR next to your name? Send a message to redpillschool. Reasonable requests will be granted.
Have questions? Ask away here!
Join our chatroom for live entertainment.
I always wonder what us men are supposed to think when women post these things.
"Oh no, a woman has to go from having a golden ticket to experiencing a dating life that's still better than what 90% if men experience! Forget our struggles, let's stop everything and figure out how to make things better for her..."
The way I read this is that the woman who wrote this does not fully understand hypergamy. Hypergamy in practice is women seeking the best possible man she can for relationships and marriage, and while traits such as physical attractiveness are part of the equation, it is most certainly not the only part of the equation. One of the core tenants of "gaming women" is about how you present your personality.
And when this woman says "Actually, personality is a far bigger factor than just looks," she is not presenting new information. What she has done is narrowed the definition of hypergamy to looks and money, "debunks" it by stating that there are other traits that play a role besides too. Traits that are well established to be part of hypergamy. Of course women want a guy who also has the personality as part of the package. Men have been talking about how to improve themselves in the social sphere to succeed with women better for decades. So this is not groundbreaking news.
I will say that for a man to be the most successful with getting attention from women, he will find it easier if he has more of everything. More earnings, better physical attractiveness, more charisma/personality, and anything else that women seek.
One major factor with why looks are so emphasized is dating apps. Many men have a hard time getting to step 1 of dating if they cannot even get a date. It is hard to argue that personality is more important when you cannot even get to the phase where that starts mattering. Another thing, "personality" is often subjective to looks as well. I am not saying personality does not matter, but we are doing the equivalent of telling job seekers that they need to improve their interview skills to have a better chance of being hired when they are telling you that their resume keeps getting autorejected by the broken job portals. So we first need to get past the issue of the autorejection before we claim that "what really matters is your interview skills." Both the resume and the interview skills are relevant to hirability, as both looks and personality are relevant to success in dating. We simply need to understand what the first hurdles are when discussing issues.
Read MoreIt starts at 32 with a Rice Crispy cake. By 42, she's a 300-lb walking land whale shoving an Entire cake into her mouth.
Public service message: If you enjoy the content, please consider posting this link to the Reddit version of WAATGM since I cannot. It drives more traffic to this site, such as myself, and that's how the content creation happens. Please do your part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlC5DEp2EOQ
@Typo-MAGAshiv Flairing as WAATGM In the Making because she appears (developing) cognizance of her future. Please reflair appropriately if required.
But the reality gives me a "yeah, no thanks" feeling.
Absolute truth, just not in the way she thinks. Reality is saying "no thanks" to her. She's 20 years too old to be making much in the way of demands for a dancing monkey. She's just too stupid or arrogant to be able to read the memo she is getting in the form of men who feel no need to make an effort to crack open her dead egg filled tomb.
Back in the day I thought we should have a Mrs Archwinger appreciation day.
As the alchemists showed, unsolvable problems contributed majorly to the advance of human knowledge.
I like how @Kloi sums up the current state of affairs.
What's left out, though, is men's need for love. (Men need love but can't find it, because women are incapable of it, while women find love but can't feel content because they are gluttonous by nature).
Until 100 years ago, a man was supposed to enter marriage with a woman after he made her submitt. The taming of the shrew was a prerequisite.
Now, capitalism has found that it can squeeze more surplus out of the family if it constantly excites the shrew. There's no reprieve for the man. (Typo, you've read Esther Vilar's second book, The polygamous sex, right? It's a bit dated, no evopsych back then, but it's impressive how she is able to grasp the gist of the difference in male/female love using 70s sociological notions and a humanitarian perspective).
The sad fact is that a relationship that is not supposed to last "till death do us part" necessarily turns into an antagonism of who can extract the most out of it. And women, having a more integrated psychopathic mode, are more equipped for that.
Read MoreHypergamy wouldn't exist if all men were in the top 10%. DUH.
His discussions did not include people who were led to addiction by their doctors,
Dude, I was in a position of listening to all three hours of his radio show, every day, for literally half a decade. Therefore, I can say with certainty: Rush did NOT, I mean not fucking once EVER, clarify, caveat, offer exceptional or outlier cases, that could in any way get even perceived as "diluting/softening" his hard-line positions on issues, particularly that of drugs. Even "legal" pharmaceuticals, he stood hard for the for-profit model, and vilified every other alternative as "socialized medicine, a slippery slope directly to full Communist takeover of the USA."
So yes, he was HARD in favor of the status quo that financially incentivizes doctors, hospital systems, and pharmaceutical companies, to push pills for money, and fuck all the guardrails around those with abuse potential. And, he wasn't just speaking in a vacuum. He was nationally syndicated, with an audience of tens of millions, who called themselves "Dittoheads" which as repeated on-air meant "I love you and completely agree with and believe everything you say!"
Thus, he modeled ideas, behaviors, and attitudes for the entire American Right Wing culture. His platform and positions, therefore held a symbiotic relationship with the culture and positions of law enforcement up to and including Federal agencies (classic example Chief Darryl Gates saying publicly, "Casual drug users ought to be taken out and SHOT!"), legislative bodies therefore the drafting, enactment, and enforcement of drug laws and literally tens of millions of dollars per year budgeted for interdiction and enforcement activities.
For my part, I was closely involved with the "legalize hemp/cannabis" movement, therefore a ground level soldier intimately involved in the "Drug War," Immersed in it personally, not a casual pundit on the sidelines with no more skin in the game than agreeing with a fat fuck radio host.
SO, for one of THE. TOP. players in the entire 2 decade drug war vertical industry and legislative machine, who in service of this position expressed the harshest possible treatment of OTHER drug users, to carve out a personal exception, and to selectively do the opposite of the entire corpus of his expressed position on the entire thing, is COMPLETELY out of the fucking question. When it came down to him personally, "falling victim" to the same human foibles and weaknesses he spent literally thousands of hours condemning others for; he deserves ZERO compassion, mercy, empathy, and other such things he also condemned personally, and claimed belonged to his ideological opposites, "The Left", when it suited him and the entire breadth and height of his hard line positions on drugs and their users.
Read More
