Let me add my list of books that I read during 2024. Around 20% of them are re-reads, but all of them started and finished in 2024. 3 comments: (a) "Oh, you have a lot of free time". No, I don't. I just don't waste it on Netflix, video games, etc. (b) "Men don't read". Lol. Men don't read the subpar contemporary literature. When you will release the new Hemingway or Balzac (and I am overindulgent, I could have asked for Shakespeare and Dostoevsky) call us back. Until then, f* off. (c) "There are too many white men on your list". Yes. And too many black-coloured covers. The one worries me as much as the other. Happy 2025, with lots of books. Good books, not rubbish. P.S. Oh f*, I didn't realise that I now have to put them back !

@Lilith_Atheist Why are the modern atheists so desperate to co-opt Jesus? Do you have second thoughts, maybe?

@neiltyson The opposite of black public persons, who attribute it to discrimination when they fail but not when they succeed.

If I believed that you couldn't understand complex thought, I would make it simpler for you. In any case, it is not something to be proud of. I understand that feminism is for many women today. What astrology was some decades ago: a pretext to socialise and discuss things over a coffee. I am fine with that. But, one thing should be noted: that it is as invalid as astrology was. This is important because there is a risk of taking such nonsense seriously and affecting your life, mainly your relationship with men. Keep feminism out of this sphere, and don't take it more seriously than a pretext to gossip.

It is accurate enough to invalidate feminist claims. In the critique of male antisocial behaviour feminists mingle two causes (in the Aristotelian sense of the word), the material with the efficient cause. The material cause is the fact that the average man is stronger than the vast majority of women. The efficient cause is the reason why a man uses this physical advantage against his partner (in the case of domestic violence). The feminist critique ignores the material cause and claims that the efficient cause is the ghost of the patriarchy and the ideas that men have in their heads about women. The comparison of men versus women in heterosexual relationships is invalid because women lack the material cause. The comparison is valid if we examine a scenario that women have the same material cause. In a lesbian relationship, most of the times, one of the partners would be stronger than the other. So, in this case the material cause exists and the case is equivalent to men in a heterosexual couple. If the reason for domestic violence was on a "gendered efficient cause", then we would see it in the data: the lesbian partner who is stronger would be LESS violent than the male in the heterosexual couple. But she isn't. She is actually MORE violent than the male. What does this mean? This means that there is no "gendered efficient cause". The efficient causes are "unisex", and they are the ones that I mentioned before. Not the patriarchy or some other marxist conspiracy theory. P.S. The same analysis stands for violence in general. To put it vulgarly, men are more violent in general because...we can. In order for a man not to be violent, he needs to self-impose a boundary. Thank God for our society, the vast majority of men do that. But there are always going to be the ones who for one reason or another they can't or they won't. This is the "criminal class". Women are not better or less antisocial or whatever, they just lack the material cause (most of them, I mean). There is another proof of that. Most violence against kids is done by the mother and not by the father. Why? Because in this relationship, women are stronger, and they need to self-impose a boundary. Thank God for our society, the vast majority do. But not all.

I don't think that I am to die on this hill. Statistics show that women experience more violence from their partners in lesbians relationships than in heterosexual ones. If the feminist explanation of domestic violence was correct, i.e. that it is caused by male preconceptions of women (sexism, misogyny, rape culture, objectification, etc), then, once you would remove the male from the relationship and replace him with a woman, you would see domestic violence disappear, or at least be reduced substantially. You wouldn't see more violence "from one sister to the other", would you? In general, feminism is a half-baked marxist dogma that has no value at all. In this case (as in many others) it is not only useless, it is actually harmful. It is harmful because, by falsely attributing domestic violence to the "ghost of patriarchy" it impedes dealing with domestic violence by tackling the ACTUAL causes, cause that are known for a long time now: poverty, unemployment, stress, alcoholism, drug abuse, mental illness, depression, etc.

Their power is not related to their popularity but on two other things, at least one of which is direct responsibility of the Democrats: 1. Their prevalence among the elites, who find in them a satisfaction of their Messiah complex, and even consider their unpopularity as a further asset, in line with their sneer and contempt for the public. 2. Their inclusion in the political system as people who may be militant in their practices but have "their heart in the right place". This is usually part of a quid pro quo between the left and the Democrats: the Democrats legitimise the leftists opinions, while the leftists become the muscle of the Democrats, acting outside the law against conservatives or anyone else who is in opposition. For these reasons, the largest danger in the West these days is the international left, which among other things, has the implicit or explicit support of the international enemy: China.

The question is not if this piece of shit is a representative sample, but why are his opinions not enough to dismiss him from the institutions controlled by the left? You ask the right to police its fringes and expel its extremists. But you NEVER do the same in the left. You never expel anyone for being extreme - left, you never police the left border of civil society, you not even have anything worse to say about this two-footed excrement than that he is "wacky". You wouldn't call a Nazi wacky, I am pretty sure about that. Why the bias, then? Why do you PROTECT the communists while demanding us to expel the fascists?

@afperezb9 @TaintedSaint2 @Provokethoughtz Fear doesn't validate anything. Fear is irrational. It is not a basis for argumentation. Plus, the fear of the male is a constituent part of female sexuality. This means that even if men became angels, women would still be afraid of them.

My incel rabbit hole. Lol. I have been married for 25 years now. And out of the dating game for the same amount of time. That is why I am objective, I don't have anything to win or lose. And I can see objectively the effect of feminist extremism to sexual relationships. Which was only to be expected. Feminists have been saying for decades now that all coitus is rape. And our society had the "brilliant idea" to adjust love based on the principles of these miserable, unloving people? Of course, we would get all sorts of nasty effects. Is it a surprise? All in all, it is healthy and hopeful to see the reaction against this nonsensical extremism. Boys lead the way (as all polls show), but girls are already turning their backs on feminism. As for the rest, you want a reference that hordes of women said yes after a series of no? Are you for real? What next, a reference that the sun comes up every morning?

Due to me? Thank God you found the cause of your problems. I am worse than that. But still, you can't explain why hordes of women accepted a man after a series of rejections. Were they coerced? Were they too stupid to understand that their wooer is a predator? Were they vulnerable victims? And if they were some of that, or a mixture of them, what a bleak and pathetic picture it draws of your sex. Weak, fragile creatures, who can't even be trusted to form their own opinions. I believe that women have agency. And that they can send signals that qualify no, making it either 'not yet" or "no, never". One of the latter is referring to their boyfriend. P.S. By the way, your stupid mantra "no means no" hurts both men and women. The reason is that the stalkers, abusers, etc, won't listen to any mantra anyway. They will just go ahead. The ones who would change their ways would be the ones whom women wouldn't mind asking for a second time because they know where to draw the line. Which means that you make dating harder for the good men, but not for the bad ones. Which is bad for women, too. But there is an extra effect on women. Introvert or shy women used the fact that "there will be a second time" to take their time thinking about it. By removing this option from them, you make their dating life even harder.

Why does someone need to make himself less ordinary? Where is the rule that says: the less ordinary, the better? Where is the proof that being less ordinary leads to better, happier, and more fulfilling life? And this is at the root of the woke intolerance. A completely arbitrary (and unscientific, of course) belief that soul-searching is becoming a freak, ergo, being an ordinary person is negative (usually a mixture of cowardice, stupidity and malice). All of you remind me of the nutcases who search for their previous lives, and all of them end up discovering that they were kings, princes, warlords, etc. No farmers, no housewives, no nothing without prestige and "mystery". Same with you. All of you who "discover themselves" end up being self-announced leaders, healers, and warriors. Nothing but healers, warriors, and leaders. Thank God that most of us don't follow this path of narcissistic self-deceit.

Sure thing. However, you don't add any shred of evidence to support your position. And you couldn't. The reason why you BELIEVE in it is because you associated it with progress. It is not a secret that gender ideology is part of a bigger left-wing campaign to redefine society. It spawned from feminist marxism, according to which binary sex is reproducing capitalist hierarchies. Hence, by muddling sex and making it fluid (which is the ultimate goal, transgenderism is just a first stage in their plan), an obstacle to progress can be removed. The gender ideology was then produced, as a pseudo-scientific theory (with a lot of similarities to Lysenkoism) that may legitimate this paradigm shift. This trajectory is completely unscientific, because it starts and not ends with the conclusion. In science, there is a partially-unknown reality that is examined objectively and rationally, and without any preconceptions of the final conclusion, which may be whatever the data show and reason dictates. Gender ideology started with the target of deligitimising sex and then worked its way back. This is not how science is defined. Only religions are defined this way. And gender ideology is a pseudo-religion. It is based on faith, not reason.

You've obviously haven't heard that rare diseases do not redefine what is normal. Rare births with 2 heads don't change the scientific fact that "humans have one head". Equivalently, rare sex-related mutations don't change the scientific fact that "there are 2 sexes". Oh, and gender doesn't exist (more than a synonym of sex). Ergo, transgender doesn't exist either.

They don't turn asexual. They question the value of sex. For which they are right. Sex is completely overvalued, for a long time now. The healthy reaction is not to go to the other extreme, but instead, to put it in its right place: as an expression and culmination of love. P.S. Framing this as a distinct identity (asexual) is dangerous because it misrepresents some emotional passing phase as a rational permanent conclusion.

A conservative says: can I make a positive difference in this person's life? If there is a big chance to make things worse, I prefer not acting at all. A liberal says: bring the cameras in, I want to pretend that I am virtuous. Who cares if I make things worse, I can always hide behind my "intentions." P.S. That's why conservatives care more about things and people close to them, because they can control the outcome of their actions. That's why liberals "care" about things and people far from them, because it is just posturing.

Because that is a despicable practice from the left. Which, they use ONLY to target the ones that get in their way. E.g. there are some billions of photos of Justin Trudeau in blackface. Not a single leftist has ever called for him to be cancelled. Because he belongs to The Party. It is selective pseudo-outrage. And it has to stop immediately. The mistake was that this kid was fired in the first place. The right should not give an inch to the left. Let them moan and pretend that they are offended.

@iamAtheistGirl @MikeEklund8 In other news, atheists don't need God to define morality because they have empathy and compassion.

@iamAtheistGirl First, let's make him a martyr. Fry the bastard.