Going to be a very hotly despised take but this and many more like it show why in general (as their are exceptions) women more than men tend to vote, make decision based too much on an emotional take and not with logic and reason. While that's fine for social event decision making, in governance this is absolutely dangerous. It's time to stop pretending we can deny our biological nature and be these idealistic state that humans can not exist in because of our nature. We can strive to be better but we also must be realistic.
FACTS:
The average couple must have 2.1 kids to MAINTAIN population levels
A women's fertile years, those when baring children is safest, are between 18-20
What does society encourage women to do in these years? Focus on college (which means acquiring large amounts of debt often for a degree in a soft science that will not pay enough to pay back the debt) followed by career thinking about family only once she is almost too old to safely have kids let alone then begin the process of finding a husband.
We can't have it both ways, this idealized society of 50/50 share in governance based on sex and a continuing society. Women didn't use to call this oppression until feminist ideology told them being that which is bilogically natrual is somehow actual oprression.
It's important to remember that it's easy to watch these (as it requires no effort) and difficult to participate in them. This young woman was put on the spot—with cameras on her—and was honest about her beliefs. Independent of the content of her beliefs, this took guts.
I've done public speaking/teaching so I know what it's like to get in front of others and this kind of thing, what the participants does, takes far less guts to do than your end of the process. Yes you have experience which makes it easier for you but it still takes guts to do on the street interviews with random people more so than it takes to participate in them and to say/speak that which is the perceived norm. To this woman she believes her take is the norm as that's how most in her circles act/believe.
What takes guts is to do one of these and go against the grain, against the perceived norm. I say "perceived norm" because that's what it really is today, our perceptions of what is the norm since our perceptions are so tightly controlled. Between what public education and the universities push what takes courage is to support Trump in a college campus setting, not to claim it would have been better in some way had he been killed.
FYI - Because it costs LIKES when you edit a post, some corrections are needed and I swear no matter how many times I check and re-check something always gets by! I swear auto-correct is the true devil
1) Obviously the fertile years isn't just 18-20, that was supposed to be 18-30.
2) "and be these idealistic state that humans can not exist in" was supposed to be "and be in this idealistic state that humans can not exist in"
You have way more patients than I would in that situation Peter.
Credit for getting that painfully ridiculous girl, to probably think critically for the first tie in her life. She seemed like the mindless drones, that could be swayed or activated by a sound bite on her preferred news gathering outlets, like those late night shows she listed.
The guy was a definite lefty, but not buffoonish and had at least some guardrails and or moral boundaries.
Both get credit for maintaining civility and a level of respect in their interactions with you.
Thanks. I really am genuinely curious as to why people believe what they do. I think that curiosity helps calm things down and keep interactions "chill".
Whether you agree/disagree, like or dislike Peter he definately does some tough things that many wouldn't and some couldn't. Mans got a the patience of a saint.
I'm just glad we got some old school Liberals who see thru this BS and realize the necessity of saving not "Our Democracy" but "The Republic"
Are you referring to the original comment the woman being interviewed made about how shooting Trump was humorous or do you mean something else? It's hard to tell with teh lines Substack uses to connects replies.
I have doubts that she actually believes what it is that she said. Especially given how she ended up towards the end of the discussion. She was just doing it because she was having fun.
The fact that anyone would find humor in the shooting of any candidate regardless of party and or who they are should be alarming but sadly it's not. I say "candidate" b/c this is definitely political and had Peter picked teh name of some non-politician who was a staunch right leaning person something tells me this woman would not have supported shooting them for humor.
Going to be a very hotly despised take but this and many more like it show why in general (as their are exceptions) women more than men tend to vote, make decision based too much on an emotional take and not with logic and reason. While that's fine for social event decision making, in governance this is absolutely dangerous. It's time to stop pretending we can deny our biological nature and be these idealistic state that humans can not exist in because of our nature. We can strive to be better but we also must be realistic.
FACTS:
The average couple must have 2.1 kids to MAINTAIN population levels
A women's fertile years, those when baring children is safest, are between 18-20
What does society encourage women to do in these years? Focus on college (which means acquiring large amounts of debt often for a degree in a soft science that will not pay enough to pay back the debt) followed by career thinking about family only once she is almost too old to safely have kids let alone then begin the process of finding a husband.
We can't have it both ways, this idealized society of 50/50 share in governance based on sex and a continuing society. Women didn't use to call this oppression until feminist ideology told them being that which is bilogically natrual is somehow actual oprression.
It's important to remember that it's easy to watch these (as it requires no effort) and difficult to participate in them. This young woman was put on the spot—with cameras on her—and was honest about her beliefs. Independent of the content of her beliefs, this took guts.
I've done public speaking/teaching so I know what it's like to get in front of others and this kind of thing, what the participants does, takes far less guts to do than your end of the process. Yes you have experience which makes it easier for you but it still takes guts to do on the street interviews with random people more so than it takes to participate in them and to say/speak that which is the perceived norm. To this woman she believes her take is the norm as that's how most in her circles act/believe.
What takes guts is to do one of these and go against the grain, against the perceived norm. I say "perceived norm" because that's what it really is today, our perceptions of what is the norm since our perceptions are so tightly controlled. Between what public education and the universities push what takes courage is to support Trump in a college campus setting, not to claim it would have been better in some way had he been killed.
FYI - Because it costs LIKES when you edit a post, some corrections are needed and I swear no matter how many times I check and re-check something always gets by! I swear auto-correct is the true devil
1) Obviously the fertile years isn't just 18-20, that was supposed to be 18-30.
2) "and be these idealistic state that humans can not exist in" was supposed to be "and be in this idealistic state that humans can not exist in"
boi what the sus
God is on our side, and there is going to be justice!
Amen. No matter what any of us think or want, in the end he will have it his way period.
You have way more patients than I would in that situation Peter.
Credit for getting that painfully ridiculous girl, to probably think critically for the first tie in her life. She seemed like the mindless drones, that could be swayed or activated by a sound bite on her preferred news gathering outlets, like those late night shows she listed.
The guy was a definite lefty, but not buffoonish and had at least some guardrails and or moral boundaries.
Both get credit for maintaining civility and a level of respect in their interactions with you.
Thanks. I really am genuinely curious as to why people believe what they do. I think that curiosity helps calm things down and keep interactions "chill".
Whether you agree/disagree, like or dislike Peter he definately does some tough things that many wouldn't and some couldn't. Mans got a the patience of a saint.
I'm just glad we got some old school Liberals who see thru this BS and realize the necessity of saving not "Our Democracy" but "The Republic"
Sick statement, from you? If so, you must be sick
Are you referring to the original comment the woman being interviewed made about how shooting Trump was humorous or do you mean something else? It's hard to tell with teh lines Substack uses to connects replies.
god savfe rhe trumo3
I have doubts that she actually believes what it is that she said. Especially given how she ended up towards the end of the discussion. She was just doing it because she was having fun.
on skibidi
The fact that anyone would find humor in the shooting of any candidate regardless of party and or who they are should be alarming but sadly it's not. I say "candidate" b/c this is definitely political and had Peter picked teh name of some non-politician who was a staunch right leaning person something tells me this woman would not have supported shooting them for humor.
hawk tuah