OP is a tankie USSR apologist. No reasoning with them.

The issue is that you presume the options are either public housing or a tent. You are missing the other option, which is simply allowing developers to build more housing on their own and removing the ability to speculate on land value, forcing land owners to earn an income only by the benefit their land provides to others. Zoning reform, good urban infrastructure, and Georgist tax policy do this without necessitating terrible concrete commie blocks everywhere

This seems true only on short time scales, and in corporate work structures. On long time scales and with more collaborative, voluntary work structures, a group of people working together and supporting each other will almost certainly outperform a disorganized collection of non-communicative individuals. We can see this is true because, yaknow, society exists.

I’ve learned that i’m a LOT less sexual than a lot of my peers so I just don’t get it.

This is probably the differentiating factor. I am a highly sexual person.

You’re fitting the problem to the things you want it to address. As someone who was formerly a young man, I can tell you that I didn’t care about owning a house, healthcare was an ephemeral thing I didn’t think about, and making fast food wages was good enough for me. But I did care a lot about the fact that I wasn’t getting laid.

Ironically, this comment supports Rogan’s point. Shaming people for using a particular word is pointless, because the word is just a word. The insult is being called mentally handicapped, regardless of the actual word used. The argument against using the word was to remove the stigma against people with mental disabilities - but people will just come up with a new word. If you are insulting Rogan by insinuating that it is bad to be mentally handicapped, then you are perpetuating that stigma regardless of the particular word.

Thanks I hate it.

I’m honestly wondering if this post isn’t just missing the forest for the trees. Like, what if it really is all about just guys not getting laid?

Like, OOP goes to college, spends time with lots of women, goes to parties, and sleeps with some of them. His view is now that society is reasonably just, since he now has a reasonable expectation that he will be able to have sex.

I mean, we can think about the various manosphere spaces: the red pill - treat women badly to get sex; mgtow - give up on relationships with women and just do your own thing; incels - just give up, you were doomed to l be a virgin from the start; “male loneliness epidemic”, aka, I can’t get a girlfriend. And then we have Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson giving these men advice, which if you remove the toxicity, boils down to: stop caring about what women think of you, take care of yourself, work out, get hobbies, spend time with friends, do well in your career. Which is pretty good advice to follow if you are a man, looking for women!

And it’s not like sex is some trivial thing, either. From an evolutionary point of view, if you can’t have sex and have no expectation of being able to get it in the future, that’s a death worse than death. It is the end of your genes, which are programmed to want to continue existing even more than any individual is.

So if you’re looking to deradicalize young men, it’s possible that the solution is to just give them a straightforward path to getting some pussy.

Look up “polarizing” as a dating strategy. You don’t have to attract everyone. Just the people who are into what you’re into.

Outsourcing is a solution.

I’m confused as to what your objection is.

Not really. I’d say that most fetishes heavily favor one gender or another.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Who said it isn’t working?

No, but a lot of women are really into giving pleasure to their partners, whatever that might entail (within boundaries). So if a guy is really into feet and shows it, there’s a decent chance his partner will get off on indulging his fetish. Plus, I assume foot fetishists give the best foot massages.

For all the reasons others have described, this is problematic. However, I propose a middle ground: develop permanent, reversible, side-effect-free birth control, and apply it to every child at 10 years old. When you turn 18, you can have it removed. You just need to show up at a government office, sign a form, and have the procedure completed. It is completely free, and you are out the door in an hour. The treatment can be reapplied at any time.

What happens? No more accidental pregnancies. No more getting knocked up in high school. No more scares after one night stands. No more becoming impregnated by a rapist. Everyone can fuck to their heart’s content, but babies only get made if both people actually want a baby. Most of the problems you are talking about typically occur when either one or both of the parents don’t want or weren’t expecting a child. Make pregnancy opt-in, and you’ll solve 90% of the problems.

Ooh, I’ll beat your unpopularity here.

Cycling on the sidewalk in suburban areas is often safer than cycling on the road, and should not be discouraged.

Removed by mod

I’m also saving that money by having kids. But I’m also trying to spend my life facing hard things and enduring difficulty. Then when I no longer have the faculties to care for myself, I’ll walk into the wilderness and become one with the landscape again. Seems more stylish than getting my ass wiped by someone else for years.