The first, and most important point, is to read something before responding to it.
At the end of my essay, I say:
"I am not blaming women, or anyone else, for the current problems with human sexuality. I am not a reactionary. I don’t want to return to a premodern way of life. I want modern civilization to succeed. I am not a traditionalist. We can’t solve the problems of modern civilization by restoring traditional religion and morality. Modern problems require new solutions."
So, I am not a reactionary. You are arguing against an imaginary opponent that you made up, so that you can prance around on your moral high horse. It's so tedious and boring. There's nothing intellectual about what you are doing. You're just creating noise.
You start by poisoning the well, telling your readers what I believe, despite not even having read the post. You use manipulative rhetoric to deceive your readers, telling them that I use deceptive rhetoric, so that you can impose your own interpretation on it.
You say "He argues that freedom is actually a problem because it assumes people always know what is best for them."
That is a lie. What I said was:
[begin quote]
Our culture assumes that freedom is generally good, and that people should be free to pursue their own desires, unless that pursuit conflicts with the freedom of others. This view is so pervasive that most people would struggle to understand a critique of it. However, it is based on dubious assumptions.
One of those assumptions is that people know what is good for them. This assumption is linked to hedonism. If pleasure and pain are the ultimate good and bad, then you have direct awareness of what is good and bad for you. You could be mistaken about the consequences of your actions, but not about what is intrinsically good or bad.
[end quote]
The assumption is not that people always know what is good for them, but that people *generally* know what is good for them. That is a core assumption of liberalism.
You say:
"That’s precisely why societies regulate activities like gambling, drugs, and unsafe working conditions while still upholding personal autonomy. The alternative—total social control—has been tried many times throughout history, always with disastrous results."
Obviously, those regulations do limit personal autonomy. So, you accept the principle that society should limit personal autonomy in certain ways, to protect people from themselves. For example, a new drug might be hard for most people to resist, so society should control it.
The point about total social control is irrelevant to the essay. In fact, it is irrelevant to anything, because no society has ever had total social control over individuals.
You say:
"The real trick here is how this logic is later applied to gender roles. By first calling into question human judgment in general, the author sets up an argument for why women, in particular, cannot be trusted with autonomy."
I never said that women, in particular, cannot be trusted with autonomy. That is not the point of the essay. You projected that onto it, because that's the position that you want to argue against. That's just more dishonesty.
You quoted me saying "I will consider the possibility that women evolved to be owned/dominated by men", however, you omitted the end of the sentence.
What I said:
"I will consider the possibility that women evolved to be owned/dominated by men, and cannot function in the modern environment of sexual freedom."
You say:
"This statement alone reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not design species for specific social roles. There is no any more than there is one that dictates kings must rule over peasants."
Sorry, but you are the one who is completely ignorant of evolutionary biology and psychology. First, sex roles are not social, they are sexual, or in other words, interpersonal. Evolution does create sex roles. In almost every sexually-reproducing species, males and females are different, and in complex organisms, they have different evolved patterns of behavior. I explained how the difference in reproductive strategies leads to different emotions and behaviors in men and women. This is well understood in evolutionary psychology.
Did I say that there was a "predetermined biological mandate that dictates women must be owned by men". No, that's a strawman. Read what I actually wrote.
I'm not going to waste my time going through the whole thing. That should be enough to let your readers know how dishonest you are.
Man you cannot gaslight me. I have gotten used to right-wingers trying that tactic to run away from the very dubious implications they love to push. That is why I look at how other people interpret it and now I can simply ask AI to analyze texts. Guess what they see the same implications that I see. You think they are programmed to somehow agree with me or think like me? No, they are trained on massive amounts of text to understand how humans communicate. How we express ourselves and imply things.
You say you are not reactionary. This is a classic rhetorical maneuver—stating one thing explicitly while heavily implying the opposite throughout the rest of the essay. You are fooling nobody.
I did read what you wrote, you just don't like my unflattering characterization of your redpill misogyny. You believe that I couldn't have read it because I did take your dishonest "I am not a reactionary" claim at face value. Man everything you write is reactionary. Anyone can look at your posts and see they are the classic right-wing reactionary talking points.
You did heavily imply that women cannot be trusted with autonomy as your whole article is about how everything has come crashing down because of female liberation. In fact you couldn't produce any positive characterizations of it. Instead you see it in the most misogynistic bleakest way possible. No light in your end of the tunnel. Like there is absolutely zero balance in your writing. I can also write about problems of modern society and the low fertility rate we face today. But I am able to write about it without your doom and gloom that heaps all the blame on women.
Oh I forgot, you don't blame women. I must apparently take your word on that because you say so. It is a bit like North Korea insisting they are Democratic because they put it in their name. You are in fact blaming all the problems on how female sexuality works. Or rather how you imagine it works. Two different things.
In your writing you can be said to act in a particular way and that says more about what you think than what you explicitly state about yourself. Ever heard about "show don't tell"? Anyone who is serious about writing knows this. It is about conveying what a character is about without stating it explicitly. You do a "show" that says you blame women while your "tell" says you don't. I trust the former more than the latter.
I never said sex roles are social. But the concept of ownership is a social role. Evolution does not assign such social roles. You are just straw-men. Everyone knows men and women have different roles and behavior. Man I make this argument all the time myself to explain female and male behavior. I am in fact a big fan of an evolutionary understand of our behavior. It is just that your analysis has nothing to do with evolution. That is just Mr. Redpill talking.
Evolution does not prescribe “ownership” or “domination.” Human mating behavior is one of the most flexible of any species.
If women “evolved to be owned,” then why do women in modern societies actively pursue careers, independence, and relationships on their own terms? Evolutionary psychology doesn’t support his argument—it debunks it.
EVERYWHERE in the world women have fought for more autonomy. Gender equality was not forced on women from the top-down. It was fought for by women everywhere. As soon as society became more democratic it became possible for people to fight for their rights. First aristocrats got rights in relation to the King. Magna Carta. Then non-aristicrat land owners got right. Later non-landowner bourgeoisie got rights. Next the working class. Then women. Then children. It is a natural progression in any society, because all humans desire freedom, respect, peace, empathy.
It is just hard to achieve that in very primitive and brutal societies. But it seems rather absurd to suggest the "true" human nature is how it manifest itself under the worst most violent conditions.
Your whole premise that the modern world is bad for us is absurd given that we are. more happy, healthier and live longer. That fertility rate drops is not all bad. A too high fertility rate would cause exhaustion of resources and societal collapse. It is far more desirable to have a stable population than a massively increasing one.
Have ChatGPT read your article, Gemin, DeepSeek or whatever. They will see the same implied things as I did. I am not lying.
If you mean something entirely different from what you write, then you are a terrible writer. You can just see on comments to you article that people interpreted you the same way as me.
Anyone claiming I am dishonest I ask to paste your article into numerous AI tools. Ask it to analyze and criticize your text.
After the analysis. Paste this question in to see what the AI says:
In the article he writes "I am not blaming women, or anyone else, for the current problems with human sexuality. I am not a reactionary either. I don’t want to RETVRN to a premodern way of life. I want modern civilization to succeed. I am not a traditionalist. We can’t solve the problems of modern civilization by restoring traditional religion and morality. Modern problems require new solutions." Is this claim credible in your view? What supports that claim and what goes against this claim by the author?
That should dispel any of your ideas that I am misrepresenting you. An AI is does not have prejudice against you as a person. Its analysis of your text is neutral. Yet all AI finds your text very misogynistic and does not buy your claim to not be traditionalist.
Anyone can read your other articles. The idea that you are not a traditionalist. Is just laughable. You live in a bubble. The only one agreeing with you are other traditionalists, misogynists, redpillers, tradcons, manosphere.
I understand why you might want to make ChatGPT the intellectual ceiling for humanity, but I can operate above that level.
Its "brain" is a model induced from midwit text, like Wikipedia. So, it is essentially a midwit simulator, which has also been hacked to make it politically correct.
I doubt it would lie like you, but I really don't care what it says.
I meant what I said in the essay, and I said it clearly. You lied about it and babbled. Of course, you can't understand the ideas in the essay, but your lies are still lies.
Totally irrelevant point. The point is that ChatGPT can pick up the undertones in the article just as well as a human. The point was a case against your gaslighting attempts. Multiple people including me could get what you implied about women. And even AIs could see the same. At this point you got to start asking yourself whether you are the issue and not everyone else.
Here is ChatGPT's summary of the article. It does not contain any of your lies:
The essay critiques the modern cultural belief that freedom is inherently good and that people should pursue their own desires, provided these do not harm others. The author argues that this perspective is flawed, particularly in its assumption that individuals always know what is best for them. This view often aligns with hedonism—the idea that pleasure and pain are the ultimate measures of value. The essay challenges this by proposing that human actions can instead be evaluated through a biological lens, with reproduction as a key biological goal. The author posits that human desires, including those of women, have evolved to support this biological imperative.
The essay explores the historical context of gender roles, specifically the evolution of the "sexual contract," in which women were traditionally protected and supported by men in exchange for reproductive services. The state has replaced this role in modern times, granting women sexual freedom, but the author suggests that this freedom may be maladaptive because women’s emotions and desires were shaped in the context of a more controlled, traditional society.
The essay further argues that women, though liberated, still operate according to outdated instincts. They tend to wait for men to initiate relationships, reflecting an ancestral dynamic where women had little choice in the matter. The lack of urgency or desire for a mate in modern women, the essay suggests, is a result of a disconnect from the evolutionary pressures that once shaped human behavior. This results in dysfunction in modern sexual relationships, with women often rejecting men and wasting their fertile years.
Finally, the author contends that modern civilization has removed humans from their natural environment, leading to maladaptive behaviors. The absence of a clear theory of human purpose and the reliance on unexamined hedonism are identified as contributing to these issues. The essay calls for a new approach to solving modern problems, acknowledging that human nature is not adapted to the freedoms of contemporary society.
You can get ChatGPT to write that if you ask for a summary rather than any kind of analysis. However even if you simply paste in the article you get criticism. And follow up questions show ChatGPT is clearly capable of identifying the reactionary nature of the article just as well as me or anyone else. Here is the ChatGPT output from a fresh account. You can see exactly what questions I asked. No trickery: https://chatgpt.com/share/67bafa82-5d30-8013-9d07-c7d81d915bd7
You appeal to the higher authority of ChatGPT, and don't even see what a self-own that is.
I guess we don't need people like you anymore, because ChatGPT is clearly smarter than you. If anyone wants the opinion of a normie midwit, they can use ChatGPT. You're cooked. It's over.
It is almost humorous that you write: "You should read Blithering Genius's other articles if you want to understand his beliefs better. He's written about dating and marriage before using less provocative language."
I only needed to read the first paragraph and he confirms everything I said about the guy. No, it makes him look worse. He sounds EXACTLY like all the redpill misogynists tradcons haters overflowing social media today.
I left X specifically because I got tired of hearing all those points screamed in my ear 24/7. It isn't original. It is all the same stock right-wing misogynist talking points. And frankly it is just modernized version of all the same anti-feminist drivel fascists pushed back in the 1930s.
Only it is made even more pathetic now with all the crying over incels. Like seriously. Give me a break,
You are missing the point. It just proved that it can pick up on the misogyny and reactionary views that are clearly there like any other sensible person.
There is no such thing as neutrality. The political center differs in every culture. You can to differentiate between preferences and facts. How a pizza tastes is subjective. What ingredients are in it is an objective question.
A lot of us when we criticize right-wing bias, then it is not about subjective views. That is fine. It is about when you deny what the ingredients are. When you reject objective reality to fit an ideology. Examples is things like rejecting there is a dangerous pandemic, that global warming is happening, or that humans evolved.
Are the left-wing biases of that type? Sure. Many leftist reject biological reality. Or got irrational about nuclear power. But right now in the world we live in, the scale of rejection of reality on the right is outsized.
Does ChatGPT have a liberal bias.... yeah in the sense that it doesn't reject objective reality like global warming, dangers of pandemics etc. You know actual objective reality. Sadly accepting objective reality has become labeled a liberal bias, because being a conspiracy theorist has become right-wing coded.
Women did not get granted more sexual freedom because it was not a freedom for you to grant in the first place. It is like saying we are granted the freedom to pursue our happiness. No, we simply remove oppression.
Your article on modern sexual liberation isn't all untrue, but you it mixes in classic redpill thinking, speculations and end up drawing flawed conclusions. It ignores clear observable facts:
1. Sexual freedom has exited for a long time, while fertility rate has been positive.
2. One of the most feminist, gender equal countries in the world, where most kids are born out of wedlock, Iceland, had until 2010 an above replacement rate fertility rate.
3. Iceland is a well adjusted country with happy people, low crime, healthy. Compare with conservative modern nations like South Korea. People are miserable and fertility rate is dropping like a rock. Worst in the world.
Problem is like typical redpillers you put all the modern problems on women's liberation entirely ignoring the multitude of other changes in society. There are a million other things that happened which you completely ignore. There has been a massive technological revolution that you do not mention. Internet and social media has had massive impact on how we socialize. I can see it even on my kids and how their form friendships. This isn't merely about romantic relationships. Even NORMAL relationships are suffering today.
There is a massive change in how we work and live. We spend way longer time getting an education today. We pile up debt. Housing prices have gone through the roof all over the world thanks to reckless neoliberalism. The type of work we do is totally different. Like there are a million changes affecting relationships but all you can see is women having freedom. All you do is just taking regular tired Christian conservative talking points and dressing them up in modern evolutionary speak, to make prejudice sound all scientific.
You ignore that fertility rate has primarily dropped due to family planning and access to contraceptives. Both women and men want fewer children. Secondly in safer environments families sees less need of having a lot of children. But instead of consider all these myriad of other factors you are razor focused on finding a way to pile all the blame on women. You take actual evolutionary facts and put a very heavy redpill spin on them.
And I am not reading an article on the case against libertarianism. You don't need to convince a literal socialist that libertarianism is bad. That stuff is poison.
Why should we have some fascist eugenics stuff, when we already succeeded bringing down fertility rate. I am glad we agree that overpopulation is a problem. So what are you whining about. We are just lucky seeing below replacement rate birth rate. It is good having the population doing a drop.
Only thing we need to worry about is it falling too low. Too rapid change isn't good.
The first, and most important point, is to read something before responding to it.
At the end of my essay, I say:
"I am not blaming women, or anyone else, for the current problems with human sexuality. I am not a reactionary. I don’t want to return to a premodern way of life. I want modern civilization to succeed. I am not a traditionalist. We can’t solve the problems of modern civilization by restoring traditional religion and morality. Modern problems require new solutions."
So, I am not a reactionary. You are arguing against an imaginary opponent that you made up, so that you can prance around on your moral high horse. It's so tedious and boring. There's nothing intellectual about what you are doing. You're just creating noise.
You start by poisoning the well, telling your readers what I believe, despite not even having read the post. You use manipulative rhetoric to deceive your readers, telling them that I use deceptive rhetoric, so that you can impose your own interpretation on it.
You say "He argues that freedom is actually a problem because it assumes people always know what is best for them."
That is a lie. What I said was:
[begin quote]
Our culture assumes that freedom is generally good, and that people should be free to pursue their own desires, unless that pursuit conflicts with the freedom of others. This view is so pervasive that most people would struggle to understand a critique of it. However, it is based on dubious assumptions.
One of those assumptions is that people know what is good for them. This assumption is linked to hedonism. If pleasure and pain are the ultimate good and bad, then you have direct awareness of what is good and bad for you. You could be mistaken about the consequences of your actions, but not about what is intrinsically good or bad.
[end quote]
The assumption is not that people always know what is good for them, but that people *generally* know what is good for them. That is a core assumption of liberalism.
You say:
"That’s precisely why societies regulate activities like gambling, drugs, and unsafe working conditions while still upholding personal autonomy. The alternative—total social control—has been tried many times throughout history, always with disastrous results."
Obviously, those regulations do limit personal autonomy. So, you accept the principle that society should limit personal autonomy in certain ways, to protect people from themselves. For example, a new drug might be hard for most people to resist, so society should control it.
The point about total social control is irrelevant to the essay. In fact, it is irrelevant to anything, because no society has ever had total social control over individuals.
You say:
"The real trick here is how this logic is later applied to gender roles. By first calling into question human judgment in general, the author sets up an argument for why women, in particular, cannot be trusted with autonomy."
I never said that women, in particular, cannot be trusted with autonomy. That is not the point of the essay. You projected that onto it, because that's the position that you want to argue against. That's just more dishonesty.
You quoted me saying "I will consider the possibility that women evolved to be owned/dominated by men", however, you omitted the end of the sentence.
What I said:
"I will consider the possibility that women evolved to be owned/dominated by men, and cannot function in the modern environment of sexual freedom."
You say:
"This statement alone reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not design species for specific social roles. There is no any more than there is one that dictates kings must rule over peasants."
Sorry, but you are the one who is completely ignorant of evolutionary biology and psychology. First, sex roles are not social, they are sexual, or in other words, interpersonal. Evolution does create sex roles. In almost every sexually-reproducing species, males and females are different, and in complex organisms, they have different evolved patterns of behavior. I explained how the difference in reproductive strategies leads to different emotions and behaviors in men and women. This is well understood in evolutionary psychology.
Did I say that there was a "predetermined biological mandate that dictates women must be owned by men". No, that's a strawman. Read what I actually wrote.
I'm not going to waste my time going through the whole thing. That should be enough to let your readers know how dishonest you are.
Man you cannot gaslight me. I have gotten used to right-wingers trying that tactic to run away from the very dubious implications they love to push. That is why I look at how other people interpret it and now I can simply ask AI to analyze texts. Guess what they see the same implications that I see. You think they are programmed to somehow agree with me or think like me? No, they are trained on massive amounts of text to understand how humans communicate. How we express ourselves and imply things.
You say you are not reactionary. This is a classic rhetorical maneuver—stating one thing explicitly while heavily implying the opposite throughout the rest of the essay. You are fooling nobody.
I did read what you wrote, you just don't like my unflattering characterization of your redpill misogyny. You believe that I couldn't have read it because I did take your dishonest "I am not a reactionary" claim at face value. Man everything you write is reactionary. Anyone can look at your posts and see they are the classic right-wing reactionary talking points.
You did heavily imply that women cannot be trusted with autonomy as your whole article is about how everything has come crashing down because of female liberation. In fact you couldn't produce any positive characterizations of it. Instead you see it in the most misogynistic bleakest way possible. No light in your end of the tunnel. Like there is absolutely zero balance in your writing. I can also write about problems of modern society and the low fertility rate we face today. But I am able to write about it without your doom and gloom that heaps all the blame on women.
Oh I forgot, you don't blame women. I must apparently take your word on that because you say so. It is a bit like North Korea insisting they are Democratic because they put it in their name. You are in fact blaming all the problems on how female sexuality works. Or rather how you imagine it works. Two different things.
In your writing you can be said to act in a particular way and that says more about what you think than what you explicitly state about yourself. Ever heard about "show don't tell"? Anyone who is serious about writing knows this. It is about conveying what a character is about without stating it explicitly. You do a "show" that says you blame women while your "tell" says you don't. I trust the former more than the latter.
I never said sex roles are social. But the concept of ownership is a social role. Evolution does not assign such social roles. You are just straw-men. Everyone knows men and women have different roles and behavior. Man I make this argument all the time myself to explain female and male behavior. I am in fact a big fan of an evolutionary understand of our behavior. It is just that your analysis has nothing to do with evolution. That is just Mr. Redpill talking.
Evolution does not prescribe “ownership” or “domination.” Human mating behavior is one of the most flexible of any species.
If women “evolved to be owned,” then why do women in modern societies actively pursue careers, independence, and relationships on their own terms? Evolutionary psychology doesn’t support his argument—it debunks it.
EVERYWHERE in the world women have fought for more autonomy. Gender equality was not forced on women from the top-down. It was fought for by women everywhere. As soon as society became more democratic it became possible for people to fight for their rights. First aristocrats got rights in relation to the King. Magna Carta. Then non-aristicrat land owners got right. Later non-landowner bourgeoisie got rights. Next the working class. Then women. Then children. It is a natural progression in any society, because all humans desire freedom, respect, peace, empathy.
It is just hard to achieve that in very primitive and brutal societies. But it seems rather absurd to suggest the "true" human nature is how it manifest itself under the worst most violent conditions.
Your whole premise that the modern world is bad for us is absurd given that we are. more happy, healthier and live longer. That fertility rate drops is not all bad. A too high fertility rate would cause exhaustion of resources and societal collapse. It is far more desirable to have a stable population than a massively increasing one.
You lied about what I said, and when I countered with my actual words, you say that I am "gaslighting" you.
lol
You're a joke. People can see how dishonest you are. I'm not going to waste more of my time responding to your dishonest babbling.
Have ChatGPT read your article, Gemin, DeepSeek or whatever. They will see the same implied things as I did. I am not lying.
If you mean something entirely different from what you write, then you are a terrible writer. You can just see on comments to you article that people interpreted you the same way as me.
Anyone claiming I am dishonest I ask to paste your article into numerous AI tools. Ask it to analyze and criticize your text.
After the analysis. Paste this question in to see what the AI says:
In the article he writes "I am not blaming women, or anyone else, for the current problems with human sexuality. I am not a reactionary either. I don’t want to RETVRN to a premodern way of life. I want modern civilization to succeed. I am not a traditionalist. We can’t solve the problems of modern civilization by restoring traditional religion and morality. Modern problems require new solutions." Is this claim credible in your view? What supports that claim and what goes against this claim by the author?
That should dispel any of your ideas that I am misrepresenting you. An AI is does not have prejudice against you as a person. Its analysis of your text is neutral. Yet all AI finds your text very misogynistic and does not buy your claim to not be traditionalist.
Anyone can read your other articles. The idea that you are not a traditionalist. Is just laughable. You live in a bubble. The only one agreeing with you are other traditionalists, misogynists, redpillers, tradcons, manosphere.
I understand why you might want to make ChatGPT the intellectual ceiling for humanity, but I can operate above that level.
Its "brain" is a model induced from midwit text, like Wikipedia. So, it is essentially a midwit simulator, which has also been hacked to make it politically correct.
I doubt it would lie like you, but I really don't care what it says.
I meant what I said in the essay, and I said it clearly. You lied about it and babbled. Of course, you can't understand the ideas in the essay, but your lies are still lies.
Totally irrelevant point. The point is that ChatGPT can pick up the undertones in the article just as well as a human. The point was a case against your gaslighting attempts. Multiple people including me could get what you implied about women. And even AIs could see the same. At this point you got to start asking yourself whether you are the issue and not everyone else.
Here is ChatGPT's summary of the article. It does not contain any of your lies:
The essay critiques the modern cultural belief that freedom is inherently good and that people should pursue their own desires, provided these do not harm others. The author argues that this perspective is flawed, particularly in its assumption that individuals always know what is best for them. This view often aligns with hedonism—the idea that pleasure and pain are the ultimate measures of value. The essay challenges this by proposing that human actions can instead be evaluated through a biological lens, with reproduction as a key biological goal. The author posits that human desires, including those of women, have evolved to support this biological imperative.
The essay explores the historical context of gender roles, specifically the evolution of the "sexual contract," in which women were traditionally protected and supported by men in exchange for reproductive services. The state has replaced this role in modern times, granting women sexual freedom, but the author suggests that this freedom may be maladaptive because women’s emotions and desires were shaped in the context of a more controlled, traditional society.
The essay further argues that women, though liberated, still operate according to outdated instincts. They tend to wait for men to initiate relationships, reflecting an ancestral dynamic where women had little choice in the matter. The lack of urgency or desire for a mate in modern women, the essay suggests, is a result of a disconnect from the evolutionary pressures that once shaped human behavior. This results in dysfunction in modern sexual relationships, with women often rejecting men and wasting their fertile years.
Finally, the author contends that modern civilization has removed humans from their natural environment, leading to maladaptive behaviors. The absence of a clear theory of human purpose and the reliance on unexamined hedonism are identified as contributing to these issues. The essay calls for a new approach to solving modern problems, acknowledging that human nature is not adapted to the freedoms of contemporary society.
You can get ChatGPT to write that if you ask for a summary rather than any kind of analysis. However even if you simply paste in the article you get criticism. And follow up questions show ChatGPT is clearly capable of identifying the reactionary nature of the article just as well as me or anyone else. Here is the ChatGPT output from a fresh account. You can see exactly what questions I asked. No trickery: https://chatgpt.com/share/67bafa82-5d30-8013-9d07-c7d81d915bd7
lol
You appeal to the higher authority of ChatGPT, and don't even see what a self-own that is.
I guess we don't need people like you anymore, because ChatGPT is clearly smarter than you. If anyone wants the opinion of a normie midwit, they can use ChatGPT. You're cooked. It's over.
It is almost humorous that you write: "You should read Blithering Genius's other articles if you want to understand his beliefs better. He's written about dating and marriage before using less provocative language."
I only needed to read the first paragraph and he confirms everything I said about the guy. No, it makes him look worse. He sounds EXACTLY like all the redpill misogynists tradcons haters overflowing social media today.
I left X specifically because I got tired of hearing all those points screamed in my ear 24/7. It isn't original. It is all the same stock right-wing misogynist talking points. And frankly it is just modernized version of all the same anti-feminist drivel fascists pushed back in the 1930s.
Only it is made even more pathetic now with all the crying over incels. Like seriously. Give me a break,
You are missing the point. It just proved that it can pick up on the misogyny and reactionary views that are clearly there like any other sensible person.
There is no such thing as neutrality. The political center differs in every culture. You can to differentiate between preferences and facts. How a pizza tastes is subjective. What ingredients are in it is an objective question.
A lot of us when we criticize right-wing bias, then it is not about subjective views. That is fine. It is about when you deny what the ingredients are. When you reject objective reality to fit an ideology. Examples is things like rejecting there is a dangerous pandemic, that global warming is happening, or that humans evolved.
Are the left-wing biases of that type? Sure. Many leftist reject biological reality. Or got irrational about nuclear power. But right now in the world we live in, the scale of rejection of reality on the right is outsized.
Does ChatGPT have a liberal bias.... yeah in the sense that it doesn't reject objective reality like global warming, dangers of pandemics etc. You know actual objective reality. Sadly accepting objective reality has become labeled a liberal bias, because being a conspiracy theorist has become right-wing coded.
Women did not get granted more sexual freedom because it was not a freedom for you to grant in the first place. It is like saying we are granted the freedom to pursue our happiness. No, we simply remove oppression.
Your article on modern sexual liberation isn't all untrue, but you it mixes in classic redpill thinking, speculations and end up drawing flawed conclusions. It ignores clear observable facts:
1. Sexual freedom has exited for a long time, while fertility rate has been positive.
2. One of the most feminist, gender equal countries in the world, where most kids are born out of wedlock, Iceland, had until 2010 an above replacement rate fertility rate.
3. Iceland is a well adjusted country with happy people, low crime, healthy. Compare with conservative modern nations like South Korea. People are miserable and fertility rate is dropping like a rock. Worst in the world.
Problem is like typical redpillers you put all the modern problems on women's liberation entirely ignoring the multitude of other changes in society. There are a million other things that happened which you completely ignore. There has been a massive technological revolution that you do not mention. Internet and social media has had massive impact on how we socialize. I can see it even on my kids and how their form friendships. This isn't merely about romantic relationships. Even NORMAL relationships are suffering today.
There is a massive change in how we work and live. We spend way longer time getting an education today. We pile up debt. Housing prices have gone through the roof all over the world thanks to reckless neoliberalism. The type of work we do is totally different. Like there are a million changes affecting relationships but all you can see is women having freedom. All you do is just taking regular tired Christian conservative talking points and dressing them up in modern evolutionary speak, to make prejudice sound all scientific.
You ignore that fertility rate has primarily dropped due to family planning and access to contraceptives. Both women and men want fewer children. Secondly in safer environments families sees less need of having a lot of children. But instead of consider all these myriad of other factors you are razor focused on finding a way to pile all the blame on women. You take actual evolutionary facts and put a very heavy redpill spin on them.
And I am not reading an article on the case against libertarianism. You don't need to convince a literal socialist that libertarianism is bad. That stuff is poison.
Why should we have some fascist eugenics stuff, when we already succeeded bringing down fertility rate. I am glad we agree that overpopulation is a problem. So what are you whining about. We are just lucky seeing below replacement rate birth rate. It is good having the population doing a drop.
Only thing we need to worry about is it falling too low. Too rapid change isn't good.