u/altpoint

Yep. The OP’s hypothesis is factually incorrect, or more like a baseless worry/fear. Take for example identical twins: they share the same exact genetic material, meaning that if one of the two has children, they will be passing on exactly the same % of genetic material towards newer generations. Even if the other doesn’t reproduce, the same exact genetic material is passed on, it doesn’t matter as long as the offspring of the one that reproduced ends up reproducing later on, continuing the genealogical tree.

Now, most people aren’t identical twins. But a substantial % of people do have siblings (or heterozygous twins). Even if siblings don’t share 100% of the same genetic material among themselves, they still share substantial % of genetic material (upwards of 25%, sometimes upwards of 50%), otherwise incest between siblings wouldn’t create deformities, or many genetic diseases/issues.

That means that when a family has different siblings, even if one of them doesn’t reproduce, the others reproducing will cover a majority of the % of the common genetic material among that family being passed on, as long as at least one offspring survives into adulthood and itself reproduced later on. So it isn’t really an issue if, say, there is a family of 5 siblings, and one of them doesn’t end up having children: the “genetic ancestral lineage”, as OP stated, will still for the major part be passed on through all the other offspring the siblings have.

There is no rational reason to believe the family lineage will “die”, unless ALL siblings in a family end up not reproducing. Of course, the higher the amount of siblings, the less impact one of them being “childfree” has on the common familial genetic lineage being passed on. If it is a single child situation, then yes, once an adult, the single child not reproducing will have a greater impact on that specific familial genetic lineage. But even so, there are oftentimes uncles and aunts who make several cousins for 99.999999% of people, even single children, so the familial genetic lineage will not “die” per se, since even among cousins, there is common genetic material present that is characteristic to a specific family (less % than among siblings, but still substantial enough, which is why some first cousin marriages have led to issues in the way of incest/reproduction as well historically, while others have not, genetics is complicated).

So it really all depends on how you define “genetic lineage that fought for survival for millions of years”. There’s a problem already there, since the millions of years figure goes as far back as when we weren’t even humans, when we were still mixing with other species like Neanderthal and weren’t even fully a different homo sapiens species. Or when we were still autralopitecus, or even further back, were a completely different species of unspecified primitive ape that itself goes back to small mammals, or even amphibians or… fish. Genetic lineage doesn’t go that far back lol, genetically we were so far removed and so different millions of years ago that you can’t really count that as “a common familial genetic lineage”, it doesn’t make any sense.

You’d have to start not too far back to find some kind of specific genetic lineage among a family, since even if you go back thousands of years at most, the lineage will have been so frequently mixed with so many other “lineages”, an astronomical number of times, to the point of it being a difficult endeavour to delimit where one lineage starts and where another begins. Incestuous royal families tried to “preserve the genetic lineage” as much as possible during certain eras, but it always ended in catastrophic results, just look at the Hepburns and the deformations they had, the mental problems and chromosomal problems that stemmed from incest in royal families, the mental retardation, etc. To try and desperately preserve some ideal of “pure blood” or “pure lineage” through incest, extreme exclusion and arbitrary rules to “maintain blood lineage as pure as possible”… it goes against what nature and evolution intends us to do in order for the species to survive and optimize, thrive.

Nature intends us to MIX and SHUFFLE our genetic material as much as possible when reproducing. It brings forth evolutionary advantages. The more different the genetic composition (in particular the epigenetic factors that influence immune system expression) between two parents, the better outcome for the offspring in terms of evolutionary advantages, health outcomes, lesser risk of congenital disease, resistance against disease, better immunity due to novelty in the genetic offspring. Individuals born out of interracial/different ethnicity alliances or relationships, it’s been scientifically shown that they can benefit from positive factors that can contribute to survival of offspring: enhanced immune system, enhanced resistance to pathogens from different continents or geographical regions, higher IQ on average, less risk of congenital disease or deformities.

I think it’s more common to not be into RPDR nowadays, even for people into gay culture, the first few seasons up until ~10 or 12 were hits but the quality has declined since the late 2010s as some say. It is reality TV after all and there are some strong personalities there that are selected specifically to create drama, also the drama can be fabricated through editing and everything is edited in a way as to make everything seem over the top, not genuine. The drag queens who are truly talented as comedians or fashion artists go on to make their own shows/platforms/events anyways and don’t really care about if they won or not or the time they were on the show that much, rpdr is more like a marketing opportunity nowadays.

But I think many people forget RuPaul Drag’s race is just a relatively modest part of drag culture and history lol, of course it is very influential… but there are a myriad of drag queens out there, probably hundreds or thousands worldwide nowadays, and not all are really into reality TV type of stuff. If you watch something like Trixie Mattel and Katya’s shows and podcasts, I’d argue it is a thousand times more interesting and entertaining since the banter between the two, their personalities and genuine way of being are what makes the shows entertaining. Same for individual shows that focus on a particular drag queen or two or three, it is more like standup or comedy in their daily life and more genuine imo. Bianca del Rio is also entertaining and talented as a comedian and performer, Bob the Drag Queen, Alyssa, X Change, etc.

In short, it’s a bit like if you think about cooking and the culinary world. You can like cooking and be fascinated or entertained by learning about it, watching videos online of chefs/culinary artists showing off their special recipes or techniques, watch a documentary about a chef you particularly like, etc. You can also go to local venues to try out well rated, genuine food of whatever category you like and develop your palate, enjoy a moment, etc. Lots of people do. Cuisine is an art form that exists since millennia… just like drag (just look at ancient Kabuki theatre, drag performers everywhere 1400+ years ago).

But it’s not everybody who likes culinary arts that is into watching reality TV style cooking shows, like Hell’s Kitchen, Master Chef, The Great Baking Show, etc etc. Those are clearly reality TV, heavily edited and have a standardized “format” of events and drama that is hyped up intensely through editing.

You can like something without necessarily raving about or being addicted to the big mainstream mass media productions, reality TV shows, etc attached to said thing. Same thing for dance: you can certainly b really into dance, have studied difference genres and their history, go to live performances, or even perform it yourself… yet you can also certainly go all your life without watching “Dancing with the Stars” lol, that’s obvious. Or you can be into singing and choruses without watching “American Idol” or raving about One Direction or whatever latest pop group sensation was made on those kind of shows.

Higher IQ has also been linked to higher propensity to depression and anxiety, in a myriad of studies. So has “having graduate studies”, the higher the academic level you go, the more risk there is for both. Although that varies depending on field, there is a certain trend that my economics/statistical teachers talked about. I’ll try to link the study if I manage to find it. But it is relevant also in the sense that statistically, the higher level people have reached in academic studies/higher education, the more likely they are to be either moderately left leaning or strongly left leaning. That much has been replicated ad nauseam in studies and manuals across North America and Europe. “Academia has always had an inherent left leaning bias firstly due to the nature of people it attracts, but also because of the powerful effect learning a field of study (as well as several others in core courses) deeply has on one’s nuance and depth of knowledge about topics pertaining to humanity, nature and the world. The more you know, the more you know you don’t know much. The more you learn, the more you are bound to nuance and complexity in your opinions and views on the world, since things aren’t as simple and as black and white as they seemed.”

It is the concept of unconscious incompetence (I don’t know that I don’t know much about X) -> conscious incompetence (I know that I don’t know nothing) -> conscious competence (I know that I now know) -> unconscious competence (I don’t know/am not aware anymore that I know a lot). In andragogy (teaching to adults, higher education) particularly, this is important. Adults (and young adults) need to go through that cycle of processing learning, and many stay stuck in the “I don’t know that I don’t know much” stage for long periods of time (many for their whole lives), instead resorting to strong opinions on matters they don’t know much about, since that gives their ego the illusion of complete power and control over their lives and what they know. Nobody likes being powerless, or putting one’s ego aside to admit that: “I know that I don’t know much in the end about X subject, I have lots to learn if I want to understand even the very basics”. But people who do have the courage to engage in that “ego loss” and recognize that, and who dare challenge their own preconceived beliefs, convictions and assumptions about X subject or field of study… are those who manage to power through and reach the stages of conscious competence, after a long period of study, practice and hard work.

As the saying goes:

Ignorance is bliss

The more you understand about the world… the more you are aware of its heavy darkness.

Knowledge can be power. But it can also be a huge burden if you do not learn how to deal with it in a mentally healthy manner, as well as install boundaries between your personal life/leisure time/relationships, and your professional endeavours, political endeavours/engagement/activism, work life, etc.

There are also studies showing that strongly right leaning people, at least in the US, tend to process information in a different manner than left leaning people. There is a strong pushback in the former, in that presenting them with more information or “factual evidence” that might go against their own preconceived deeply held beliefs, only makes them cling unto their old beliefs more and even strengthen their beliefs the more evidence is presented to them stating differing arguments or data. It is the paradoxical: belief gets stronger the more contradictory evidence or arguments emerge against it. There can also be a felt threat to their deeply held beliefs, and evoking of reasons for which the evidence or information shown to them is “unreliable”, “controlled by X institution [the media, the government, big pharma, the news, academia, the establishment, etc.]”. There is a big focus in traditional beliefs (what was transmitted to me by my parents and my upbringing must always be true and must not be challenged, any institution outside of familial lineage is a threat that can misguide you into false ideas), and a big distrust of any institution, be it scientific, state, academic, governmental, statistical research institutions, etc. The bigger the perceived threat a new information that challenges their beliefs is, the more it tends to only reinforce their pre-held beliefs, since there it a system of in-group vs out-group where the in-group is always right, and the out-group is an enemy of the core traditional beliefs and values of the in-group. This isn’t exclusive to North American conservatism, mind you, it is a pattern that can be seen in some groups related to tribalism today, as well as in very different contexts throughout history.

Meanwhile, the left leaning subjects processed information that was presented to them in a different manner: instead of immediately blocking the new information/evidence and seeing it as a threat, they tended to naturally interest themselves in new information/evidence presented to them and read things, even if it went in a completely opposing direction to their preconceived beliefs. The key difference was there: even if presented with stuff like papers taking position extremely opposite of their own, like a scientist proposing evidence for which climate change is blown out of proportion or even untrue… these subjects would still agree to read and try and understand the new information/evidence presented to them, even if they obviously didn’t agree with it firsthand. In order to try and find out why this other person thought that way, take conscience of evidence showing opposing views to theirs (“huh, I might actually be wrong about this, let’s hear this guy out”), what were the flaws in their reasoning, trying to refute certain points with their own arguments and reasoning, etc.

Of the Big 5 personality traits, Openness to Experience played a big role in researchers’ analysis of the experiments. People high in openness to experience tend to be receptive to new information, new ideas and new data about different topics, they are open to explore different points of views and can be open to challenge their own preconceived beliefs and belief systems when they learn new information they see as valuable, reasonably reliable, reasonably trustworthy, etc. They are also more open to putting themselves in new situations, trying out new things (eating food from other cultures than their own, travelling a lot, learning new languages, etc.), they are more likely to be interracial relationships, etc. They are more likely to seek out and like to learn new information and knowledge, regardless if it aligns with their previous knowledge, as they see it as an opportunity for potential growth.

I don’t mean to be mean, but none of what you’re saying makes any sense at all. It’s like you’re talking about entire fields of study you haven’t really taken the time to study or understand, with utmost confidence, yet it just sounds like an opinion you made out of pure hearsay or speculation.

Philosophy is much more effective at what exactly? Your phrases don’t end up in clear statements, it is hard to understand what conclusions you are getting at. Philosophy is the precursor to lots of different branches in science, including psychology. Because those branches weren’t as specialized in ancient times, most of those who developed them were polymaths and general philosophers who touched to anything and everything more holistically. They also made a lot of hypotheses which were valuable and are still relevant until today (for example, Archimedes and his hypothesis surrounding Atomos existing, tiny non divisible units of matter). But they didn’t have the specialized technical ability, nor the advancements in science, to be able to empirically observe, explain and understand certain of their theories. Some were wrong about a lot of things, like thinking humans were made of fire and whatever.

Specialization in science and technology came with time. It is why you have a computer or a phone to type your comments in.

That doesn’t make any branch of science “inferior” to philosophy. Philosophy seeks to understand certain aspects of reality and consciousness that cannot easily be explained in their entirety through science. Science seeks to explain and understand certain aspects of reality, consciousness and empirical observations that cannot be easily explained through philosophy. You cannot philosophize your way out of somebody suffering from an urgent appendicitis, or a brain aneurysm. You need science in those cases, surgery, scientific knowledge, action. You cannot fully explain questions like “what is the purpose of life” through science, since certain people will respond in different manners that are more in tune with different philosophical points of view.

It’s a matter of complementarity, not “superiority”. They complement each other. Which is why philosophy hasn’t disappeared, some fields in philosophy like philosophy of science and ethics still manage to this day to help scientists make more informed and ethical decisions concerning new discoveries, new procedures, applying things in an ethical manner when there are ethical issues arising. Philosophy is also useful in political sciences, law, which are necessary for society and civilization to exist and function properly. But that doesn’t mean science isn’t just as important and paramount to our survival as a species, as well as having bettered our quality of life and life expectancy exponentially, over the course of the past millennium.

Then your next paragraph about people having “larger brains” doesn’t really make sense, that isn’t how intelligence is measured, nor how any of this works. Neuroscience and neuropsychology is complex and it is a booming field with lots of real, impactful ways in which it betters the lives of millions of people. We are developing treatments for Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons and other neurological diseases thanks to it, diseases which are incredibly widespread nowadays. How is that “inferior to philosophy”, wtf? It is necessary and good.

You criticize an entire field you know nothing about, or haven’t taken the time to learn about because it is “too much reading”. “Paraphrase”. There lies the problem. That’d be like me criticizing physics as “useless hocus pocus magic equations that aren’t even real”. Any theoretical physicist or quantum physicist who actually understands how things work and how the history of the field came to be, would be puzzled by my ignorant statements and just not be able to hold a proper conversation with me if I had that attitude. Or if I tried to argue that astrology is superior to astronomy.

Eh… data and statistical outcomes do not support that point of view. Affirmative action has had beneficial impacts in numerous fields, particularly those related to science.

In the United States, a study by Harvard and Princeton researchers found that affirmative action in college admissions led to a 23% increase in the number of minority students pursuing science and engineering degrees. Similarly, California's affirmative action policies in the late 1990s positively influenced underrepresented minorities' enrollment in medical schools, with a notable 24% increase in African American and Hispanic students. These examples highlight the role of affirmative action in promoting diversity in specific academic fields.

There’s also incitatives that were put into place in engineering schools across Canada and France which aimed to encourage young girls to visit the schools, have funded trips and activities there even while in middle and high school, change perceptions of newer generations regarding different fields of engineering and accessibility to young girls. It had impactful results: from single digits in enrolment back decades ago, up to 40% girls enrolling in certain engineering sub-fields.

“Banning sexism and racism” is kind of vague in practice. Legally, in the US, it has in theory been implemented, for racism against black Americans, through the series of anti-segregation laws and civil laws passed in the 1960s that ended segregation and gradually restricted discrimination against black people in higher education institutions. But even then, doesn’t mean everything was magically solved overnight and that nobody experiences racism ever in any organization or institution out there. Far from it. It is not an easy thing to “ban racism” or “ban sexism”. If it was, it wouldn’t be such a complex issue that requires mobilizing tons of resources and arduous debate and negotiation in congress, senate, high courts, and there wouldn’t be any legal cases of discriminatory nature being happening today.

Alas, that is not the case. Humans have the capacity to do great things like walking on the moon, healing Polio for everyone across the world, etc… but they will, unfortunately, also always have a capacity to do evil, to act in a manner that is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, violent towards others, hostile, antisocial, etc. The capacity to do great things for the good of humanity, primarily through science or diplomacy… and the capacity to r*pe, pillage and destroy whole villages and cities, cause war, chaos, destruction, suffering, etc. History is rife with great and humanistic endeavours done by good people, and evil actions committed by bad actors in antisocial manners, that lower our own species’ survival.

You can’t just “ban human nature” though lol. You can moderate it through… moderation, like it happens in subreddits that seek to keep good discourse and relevant discussion, ban trolls, etc. Or, on a larger scale, through law and order, legal system, public administration, institutional rules, etc. Affirmative action is part of the tools an institution can use to promote a more fair, just and humanistic approach to education, and its impact on their student body demographic, amongst its members and potential new recruits. When done properly, it can have beneficial effects.

I would agree with your opinion if you were talking about something else, like for example climate change and climate science. There is a consensus among 99% of experts in climate sciences that rapid, human caused climate change is real. Whether that implicates “global warming” or “global cooling” or whatever, I’m not an expert in that field, but the consensus is there and the vast majority of experts in environmental sciences worldwide agrees.

Thus, it would be true, as you say, that seeking “balance” or “moderation” among opinions there would be a logical fallacy, it would be irrational. It would be like news channels who invite “one scientist who believes in man made climate change, and one who doesn’t, to be fair and listen to both points of views!”. That is nonsensical since one side represents 99.99% of scientists in the fiels, the other side represents 0.01%. They are not both “equally right”, nor do they represent two “equally supported point of views in the field”. Sometimes appeal to balance or moderation is irrational in certain contexts. I would have agreed with you in such a context.

However… I fail to see how that applies here to what I said or the context of this situation. It doesn’t really make sense. “Is one extreme true, is the other extreme true, is somewhere in the middle true?”

I was simply citing statistics I saw on a certain year from an APA review. It isn’t “true” or “false”, it just is. What do you mean by “true”? It’s like if I say “there are approximately 128 million people living in Japan.” There is nothing… “true” or “not true” about that? It just is. It’s numbers. Statistics can be wrong, yes, but then you’d have to criticize the methodology of sampling or census. And I don’t think you were referring to the statistics being biased or wrong, more like “we should seek the truth not balance or moderation”. But that doesn’t really make sense in this conversation?

I’m just confused by your comment lol. I get what you mean in other contexts, but here it just doesn’t make sense. My argument was regarding representation and the impacts on clinical practice, research topics and research endeavours, representation in teaching as well, etc. In that context, seeking a better diversity of balance (without needing to represent everyone and anyone, I’m talking broadly, like with regard to basics like sex/gender, also people of colour, people of asian decent which were extremely underrepresented in the mental health field for 200+ years yet make up a significant % of the population, etc.) makes sense regarding the argument at hand.

I don’t understand your argument. Are you saying “seeking truth” must always be the goal in everything we do, in a philosophical kind of way, Platonically even? Because I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but still, who says “moderation” or “balance” can’t be part of the truth in certain contexts? How is balance antithetical to truth? Sometimes truth lies in balance or moderation, like if you ask me how much sugar or salt one should consume in a day. Sometimes it doesn’t. Have you ever heard of “homeostasis” in medicine? Your body constantly seeks “homeostasis”, or an approximation to returning to a balanced state. If you consume too much salt, your kidneys work harder to bring you back to homeostasis. If you consume too much sugar, your pancreas releases more enzymes to bring your blood glucose back down to homeostasis.

Not saying every situation works in the same manner as the sophistication of the human body. Extremes are good in some complex situations. The sun is extremely hot, but that is a good thing for us. The arctic is extremely cold, but if it wasn’t, it would be terrible for us and the oceans.

But in life, I have found that a sh*t ton of stuff truly does work better when tending towards homeostasis. Specially when it relates to stuff related to humans, social psychology, interactions, representation, human relations. Hell, even in economics, I don’t think wanting too much of an extreme like North Korea is a good thing. The best systems with the lowest criminality, highest psychological well being and stable PIB/capita (I know that last one isn’t a good measure but whatever), are mostly very very balanced in terms of allowing both half of it to be based on a strong social democracy with interventionist measures and strongly subsidized and controlled public systems… as well as allowing the other half of the economic system to have free trade, free market, capitalism and entrepreneurship, etc.

Isn’t that balance as well? Who would’ve thought that instead of one system waging war to the other during the cold war, the solution was found in complementarity and coexistence all along?

TLDR: Balance is key, my friend. Homeostasis. Not always, but often times it is when it comes to living things. Life is the result of a million of different processes which operate in a delicate balance. Thus most living organisms, and the relations and systems they form in their ecosystem, strive for balance in order to survive. Balance of resources acquisition vs. energy expenditure. Balance of male vs. female population. Balance of different roles and responsibilities in colonies or groups of animals.

This includes humans, for the most part. When extreme imbalances arise in a certain population, it has almost always led to war, or revolution, or conflict and instability and rapid transformation that ends up with a different balance in place after a while. If that new “balance” is not adequate enough, it in its turn will be destroyed by movements seeking to structure a new balance system. Even less “ natural” and more strictly civilizational forces like law and order come from the balance principle. Extremes are useful for natural or inorganic processes, like a neutron star exploding, or a welder using extreme temperatures to forge metal. But for anything relating to living organisms, and humans, anything relating to extremes is most of the time a threat to life itself. Which is why we tend to instinctively avoid extremes, and why society is mostly structured around balance, cosmos and order.

Except maybe in the domain of the arts, literature, or anywhere that exploring extremes can be a good outlet for testing the limits of human creativity. Since extremes there don’t directly threaten our survival or our lives, instead it enhances them by providing a viable exit or realm for our most extreme fantasies or imaginations. Thus reducing the likelihood of many people to act in extreme manners, instead living vicariously through reading, or watching a good violent movie, etc.

I am unsure how your reply is supposed to contribute to this conversation. It seems like some kind of politically charged talking point that has been repeated ad nauseam, without any real substance to it, only sensationalistic appeal and trying to evoke some emotions by means of hyperbole. This is a science subreddit, so I was sticking to statistical analysis and drawing some personal conclusions on the matter, aware that I might be wrong, or that others may have different opinions.

Yet nowhere did I state that “women are terrible”, that there is some kabbal of “extremist women psychologists” out there, nor any of the words you are trying to put in my mouth. That is just a cheap shot of a logical fallacy, hyperbole, misrepresenting my words. It is great that women are largely represented in certain fields of study related to science, when they were forbidden from entering those same fields 200 years ago. I was addressing the disparity in certain scientific fields becoming just as extreme as it was 200 years ago, except flipping the 95% consisting of “old white caucasian men with beards and monocles” to “white women coming from elite families of overwhelmingly top 1%~3% richest families in NA”. This implies various avenues of questioning, including questions relating to intersectionality: why is this the case? What about women of colour, why are they so overwhelmingly underrepresented in those fields of study, while even in certain fields like civil engineering there have been ameliorations in that sense regarding people of colour being better represented over the last decades? What caused extreme homogeneity in certain fields? Why is this snowballing and creating even more selectivity among admissions, to the point of only selecting 10 students per year among hundreds? Is there some financial incentive (offer and demand, less professionals in the field is presumably = higher pay for the few selected, according to their logic) towards gatekeeping a certain field’s demographic composition from widening a bit or from diversifying a tad? What about the millions of people who would benefit from a more broad and diverse and numerous amount of people being able to access graduate studies in mental health? What about the shortage?

Besides, everyone has the right to their own opinions, specially when those opinions are based on real life experience in graduate studies and fields of science, as well as solid arguments based on statistical data. I’m not some strawman you may have imagined in your head. I despise the “manosphere” and brutish individuals spewing idiotic rhetoric and nonsense, like Andrew Tate or Shapiro, and I despise the pseudo intellectuals who use pseudo science in order to preach misogynistic, racist, homophobic and transphobic talking points and dog whistles, like Jordan Peterson and the like. I am a supporter of LGBT rights and women’s rights. What now?

Yet you seem to have categorized me in your head immediately as someone who would be “one of those”, “an enemy”, “part of X group while I am part of Y”, “an avid supporter of those kinds of people”, without even knowing me or getting to understand the depth of my arguments. A knee jerk reaction. Isn’t that the exact same way people who truly are anti-women and reactionary act like towards anyone they disagree with, or who comes forth with arguments that suddenly confuse them? “You’re a damn LIBRUL WOKE PROPAGANDIST!!!1!1”.

Yet here it is a similar categorization without any real discussion or conversation. Instead of attacking the character of a person, or resorting to classifying everyone according to a “us vs. them” mentality, you could break free of that social conditioning and actually refute the contents and substance of an argument, not straw man or imaginary points. Petty politics isn’t what I was talking about, as it is largely a waste of time, I was talking science, statistics and representation. If you have any opinions on those matters from a scientific or philosophical standpoint, you are free to contribute it here. Otherwise I don’t know what to answer to gross hyperbole.

Also, tell me how encouraging more representation of men in fields they are extremely underrepresented in (teaching and education for example, particularly childhood education, elementary and middle school education) is a bad thing? Some feminists authors have argued that is is a feminist endeavour to promote and support more men who are interested to go into such fields from a young age. Why? Because it deconstructs the social expectations that men can’t go into fields related to “care” (psychology, social work, teaching, childhood/elementary education, middle school education, special needs education, nursing, etc.), just like women aren’t restricted from going into fields into the “hard sciences” or engineering, technology, mathematics, physics, etc. It also offers grounds for better representation, which younger people greatly need due to their way of learning and identifying to role models in their environments of learning (see Bandura’s vicariant learning and Bowlby’s role model identification).

Also, normalizing qualities which have historically been associated to “feminine roles” in men who desire to learn and develop them, isn’t that a step towards better equality of tasks and roles in society? Education of men to be more empathetic, kind, respectful, or god for forbid… well educated regarding mental health and humanistic fields of study, fields relating to “care” for others, isn’t that what the likes of Judith Butler, a prominent feminist author, promoted in some of her books? “Don’t ask girls to cover up or blame them for being catcalled or assaulted in the streets. Don’t tell girls they must bear the entire weight of civilizing men and ensuring education of the whole human society, the kids, the youth, the future. Educate young men to act properly and understand their roles of ensuring responsibility, justice, equality and respect of women of all people. Education of young men is a basic feminist principle.”

It is extreme but only in a certain subset of fields. I wasn’t talking about all of science. In the realm of TEM (technology, engineering, mathematics), it is still majority demographic of men in those fields. Physics as well. Which isn’t ideal, lots of young girls should be encouraged to go into those fields as well, and not be scared or intimidated, there have been plenty of geniuses scientist women who revolutionized our world in numerous ways.

However, there was progress in those areas, in the sense that in some countries, they have achieved a more balanced and reasonable distribution through encouraging girls to be interested in engineering and similar fields. For example, France and Canada have seen a surge of girls and women engaging in Polytechniques schools, for studying engineering. Some schools now report somewhere around ~40% of students body being women nowadays on average in many specialties, which is huge compared to the 1~5% it was in the XXth century. Things don’t have to be 50-50 everywhere either, it is fine if it is 30-70 or even 25-75 in certain specialties. The goal was simply to encourage more science and engineering among young girls and break social barriers for them. It worked.

The fields where it has become extreme though, in the other direction, are psychology, education sciences, teaching, certain fields in biology, nursing, certain specialties in medicine, etc. That is a problem because those are fields that necessitate proper representation of the populations they are going to influence. There are clinical orientations there, and if 96% of graduates in psychology, counselling, social work, and related fields are all women… what impact does that have on young men who are referred to consult? Or more largely, the larger population who might benefit from a better form of representation, to establish trustworthy links with a medical professional who can understand their issues more deeply? And what about research? It is normal for certain researchers to explore topics that relate to their own life experiences. If the population of researchers in an area is 95% homogenous, it poses problems and stagnates research in many potential directions that are unlikely to be explored. Same as it did in the past when the only people who could dictate research directions in science were older white men, that came strictly from richer socioeconomic status.

I’m not saying it should be strictly 50%-50% in those fields or some sort of arbitrary ideal. But something like 30-70 would definitely be more reasonable, maybe even 20-80. Even then, there would be variations in demography in fields and that is perfectly fine. But nearing 5-95 is just way too extreme and one has to ask what is going on. Why aren’t such essential fields in science and society not promoted towards more young men. Is there some vicious cycle going on, similarly to how some young girls are intimidated by the amount of men in some fields in engineering, technology or mathematics? Is there a bias in the admissions process of certain research and higher ed institutions?

There is also the issue of diversity in those same fields. Even if 95% of people accepted to graduate in psych were women for several years recently, there is also the fact that it is mostly white women of high socioeconomic status, coming from private schools and very privileged backgrounds, who seem to create homogeneity in those graduate programs and schools. It isn’t only down to “merit” or “grades”, but also down to contacts and connections their family may have with school admissions. There is also bias involved in the field. Admissions are unlikely to look twice at track records of youths who come from different socio-economic backgrounds, who might not have perfect track records everywhere or perfect grades, who might have struggled during their studies occupying jobs and whatnot… and who might have shown perseverance and amelioration of their results of over time. Many schools fall for the trap of “absolute meritocracy” when it comes to selecting potential applicants, as well as potential psychologists, counsellors, medical professionals, etc. Yet good mental health professionals are oftentimes those that have the most empathy, have struggled themselves at some point in life, have life experiences that can enrich their clinical practice. A potential professional who doesn’t have a perfect track record, could be better at his profession than one who has a 100% 4.3/4.3 GPA and comes from expensive private schools and has never struggled in his life for anything, or who only cares about academics results but hasn’t been very involved in ever helping their community, involving themselves in movements for promoting health in their community, is there because their parents bought them in, etc.

It’s just eugenics with extra steps. And that doesn’t guarantee better clinical practice or better research, that only those from a very narrow part of the population are given the chance to enter programs like that… even when we have a mental health crisis right now and a shortage of mental health professionals. It’s asinine. Yet here we are. Einstein himself had mediocre grades in high school and come from a very modest background, he was ridiculed by many as “a dumb eccentric poor Jew who will never get anywhere in life”, particularly by teachers and faculty who bowed down to elitism and classism. He was rejected by numerous colleges as well. It was only when one school decided to give him a chance that he eventually met Planck, and eventually the rest is history. Classism, elitism and neo-eugenics are the antithesis of what academia should be about.

Note that gender disparity isn’t the most important factor affecting the crisis in the fields relating to health and professions relating to care or education. Far from it. Regarding psychology and other graduate programs, it also comes down to elitism and those with the most wealth hoarding spots for their children in reputed universities, simply based on transmission of bloodline. It’s monarchism and feudalism in academia, which then prides itself publicly on being fair, just, seeking “veritas” or truth, acknowledging those with potential regardless of background, recruiting young people from middle class or lower economic backgrounds, etc. A huge contradiction between speech and actions. Lots of hypocrisy.

Both of these points are true. We have moved from one extreme of the pendulum to the other extreme, instead of finding a good balance in between… as science should be.

What you say is true, the knee jerk reaction when women have been gatekeeped out of science for centuries and centuries… it is completely understandable from a sociological standpoint. Even Marie Curie had to make her husband accept her first Nobel Prize on her behalf because people back then couldn’t fathom a woman advancing science by herself. I do understand why women in science want to protect the rights their ancestors fought very hard to attain all throughout their lives. And why addressing points relating to comparisons between the sexes/gender could be instinctively seen as a threat to some.

But also we find ourselves today with the other extreme opposite today in certain fields, 95%+ of people in graduate psychology programs being women. Like the other extreme completely. Also in all fields related to “care”: social work, counselling, psycho education, nursing, special education, childhood education, elementary education, middle school education, gerontology and geriatric sciences, etc. Same for some other fields in science like biologically related fields and certain medical specialties. It can be understandable for specialties like OB/GYN, and nursing is also an exception, it has historically always been more popular among women, even in countries with higher equality in a lot of other fields of study like Sweden or Norway, nursing is always majority women. Maybe for bio-psycho-social reasons, psycho-evolutionary reasons, all of that is debatable but understandable.

But I think the realm of psychology and psychiatry and neuropsychology and counselling is too vast and complex and relevant to all sorts of demographics today… it can truly hurt our understanding of ourselves and our species, when it has become only 3%~5% of people who are men who are admitted to those programs, let alone graduate. It can also make there be too much research focused on women-centric topics, and an abysmally low rate of research and development in the sense of men’s mental health topics. I’ve seen that first hand in the research world myself.

You’re bringing up an imaginary straw man argument that nobody has ever made in this thread, let alone has even suggested. What’s the aim here? It’s irrelevant to the conversation. Poor bait attempt.

A big chunk of social media today has overwhelmingly negative impacts on humanity and all facets of mental health for young people. That much is being researched today and the results are quite dark and grim.

Yes, there are platforms like YouTube that might have their fair mix of interesting content which is valuable, high quality content, mixed in with low quality content, or content by grifters or wannabe Tate’s, etc. Or video platforms like Nebula or Curiosity, etc, that mostly try to provide good content or educational content.

But most of the big name social media platforms are simply a net negative for humanity. For the tiny amount they may have brought in the form of hyping up charitable causes, or people like the guy talked about in the OP who tried to bring wholesome and valuable, interesting initiatives to the forefront through that medium…

For that small part of it, there is a part millions of times more huge made up of the very worst scum of society, purely made up of antisocial personality types spewing heinous stuff and propaganda they couldn’t otherwise say out loud in public spaces… as well as narcissistic types taking advantage of either preying on vulnerable young people to give them money for superficial reasons, or outright scamming and grifting left and right in attempt to sell con “courses” or starting whatever cult of personality they can by convincing the biggest amount of gullible people to fall for their cult-like preaching.

It is all just a cesspool of the worst of humanity who goes on there to create chaos, discord, lie, prey on others, and act in all the worst ways possible without having to get reprimanded or called out on their antisocial or narcissistic behaviour, thanks to anonymity. Or thanks to the likes of Elon Musk’s obsession with creating “a place for freedom of speech to thrive” or “the new Far-West”. It is the world’s greatest sh*tshow of the worst of humanity, funded by a megalomaniac narcissistic billionaire who is deluded that he is somehow doing something grandiose for humanity by allowing Nazis and psychopaths of all sorts of have a space to fully congregate and scheme and plot to attack others and create chaos in society… because “MUH freedom of speech”.

It is stupid. There is nothing of value on Twitter anymore, besides maybe for p0rn video creators/onlyf*ns crowd and artist who draw erotic material, which make money by promoting their stuff there. But even that is not in my core interests right now, and I don’t see why else people waste the short time they have on this earth on the likes of “X”, FB, etc. Without any kind of moderation, it has devolved into either p0rn or extremist unhinged people grifting for money, or antisocial deranged people roaming freely and brigading/bullying others in all impunity, without repercussions, their behaviour even encouraged by their Chief Moronic Officer.

The owners and high direction of those companies promote nothing more than allowing the worst people (psychopaths, narcissists, antisocial ssholes, nazis, racists, homophobes, etc) to have a “safe space” to promote their insane rhetoric and create countless dangerous cults based on violent and hateful sht. Why even support such social media platforms? Every time you spend time on there or click links on there, the people that support that kind of stuff and lobby far right extremist groups with the millions of dollars they make… you are directly funding their endeavours. Why? There are million of other stuff that you could do with your life other than be an unpaid slave to those insane maniacs. Go do something with your life.

Reddit is a tad less worse as there are some interesting or niche subreddits for some mentally healthy interests among people who share them (e.g. gardening, cycling, gymnastics, entomology, botany, biology, students in different areas, etc etc). But even then, a lot of popular subreddits are a massive waste of time too, and many contribute to poor mental health with political in-fighting, etc. As well as low quality “entertainment”, or more like “brain rot”.

Go do something meaningful for yourself, for your life, something you won’t regret having learnt or done or partaken in once you’re old and you’re looking back on how you lead your short life on this earth. You’ll thank yourself later.

I don’t condone most of those opinions held by some questionable extremist academics, specially not those defending Hamas’ every move as being “great” or whatever insane epithets they uses to describe such a tragic, complex situation that we should describe with respect and soberness. Especially for tenured academics, it is revolting.

However, I don’t believe putting in the same category the hundreds of thousands of people who have marched in the streets in protest against the massacre that is taking place in the palestinian territory today, is fair at all. It is in bad faith if you put it in the same category as the others fringe, minority of nutjob academics you named. Yes, there are both academics, experts and tons of people (including Jewish people) that do call for solidarity with Palestinian people right now and call for a ceasefire. That doesn’t mean siding with Hamas or sympathizing with the most extreme and radical of Hamas’ branches.

One can be critical of Hamas’ ideological extremism and terrorist attack, while also not supporting the extremely disproportionate force that was used by Netanyahuw and the far right governmental apparatus that is in power right now in Israel.

The facts show us that 30 000+ people have now died in the bombings the IDF and Israeli far right part of the government have committed since the start of the offensive. A significant amount of those are innocent children and women, as well as civilians. That is 20x more than the 1140 casualties during Hamas’ border terrorist attack. While I understand the geopolitical interest in there being a strong response to terrorist endeavours unto a sovereign territory or nation, coming from another territory… We should look back at the failure that was the Irak war post 9/11, the Vietnam war and other endeavours which also killed tens of thousands, yet brought nothing of value to the people whose country’s government initiated it. It only wasted countless of young lives by sending them to armies to kill mostly unarmed civilians that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack that was inflicted on them.

IDF and Israel, as a self proclaimed democratic nation, had interest in promoting defence of their territory, investing in even more defence after the incident. And limiting their retaliatory force to something REASONABLE, not disproportionate as they are doing now what many international law organizations are increasingly calling a massacre… because it is. The same number of civilian casualties as there are now, it took years in many other wars (Irak, etc) to get there… Israel caused that in a matter of weeks. It is not on the level of the invasion of Russia in Ukraine in terms of casualties, but it is the second most significant war that is actually going on in term of displacement of people and chaos caused. Of course, I am not comparing Israel to Ukraine, Israel had a legitimate reason to defend itself after its most deadly terrorist attack in substantial years, to react in some way. Russia simply invaded as a long time planned scenario to annex part of another sovereign country illegally, imperialism and conquest and unilaterally attack.

However, you can’t deny that the casualties are extremely high for such a short lived offensive. Making millions pay in blood and massacre for the actions of some terrorist sub-organization that truly were responsible for that offence, not the whole Palestinian people of millions… that is cruel and barbaric. It is Genghis-Khan or Ancient times levels of brutality and vengeance, “make a whole people pay for the crimes of a few, spare no women or children, decimate their will to live and to exist”. But it will only cause the cycle of hatred to grow from the other side, as the descendants of all of those who died will seek vengeance in return and intensify he cycle of hatred towards Israel, a vicious cycle which will only get worse after this.

I don’t get what is Israel’s government end goal with all of this. “Eradicating Hamas” is not ≠ “Eradicating 15% of a people’s population”, those kind of endeavours haven’t been seen since WW2. And it is strange that Jewish people, that were themselves victims of a mass scale genocidal attempt a 80 years ago, and managed to survive… Are now forced to endure their main representative government trying to instigate such a large scale war right now that is condemned by most international law institutions for being unnecessarily brutal and disproportionate. It is irrational and driven by senseless vengeance and bloodlust of a few extremist far right high ranking people.

There were protests I saw personally of Jewish people protesting against the way this war was pushed and the extent it has gone. In major cities across NA. I am sure a lot of jewish people in Israel do not outwardly support the extent of the offensive. Not everyone who critiques the government’s decisions are necessarily “Pro-Hamas” and whatnot.

Hamas IS a terrorist organization that has committed heinous crimes and terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, it is a complex situation since the territory of Palestine is under complete control of Hamas, and thus it works as a pseudo institutional government… with its own ministry of health which manages the hospitals, etc. So it doesn’t mean that the tens of thousands of doctors and nurses and professionals that work for “Hamas” are terrorists themselves, or are all actively involved in politics. Hamas refers to a multitude of groups and factions, including vital services and institutions for the millions of people living there. Some others focused on military warfare, guerilla fighters, etc. It is a complex matter. The IDF have used the murky waters of what can be considered “Hamas” to bomb hospitals and whatnot, which is against the Geneva convention and other international treaties, since they claim “Hamas is in there”. No sh*t… “Hamas” is also used to name the sort of “ministries” and public administrations there is on that territory, as well as medical professionals, etc, they work under that official umbrella. Bombing away hundreds of medical professionals for simply “working for Hamas” is against international law.

One can be against Hamas’ terrorist factions which openly wage war against Israel, AND simultaneously against the crazy displacement of millions and massacre of tens of thousands that Netanyahou’s gang is doing right now. One doesn’t void the other.

I don’t condone most of those opinions, specially not the last one calling it “exhilarating” or whatever insane epithets he uses to describe such a tragic, complex situation that we should describe with respect and soberness. Especially for tenured academics, it is revolting.

However, I don’t believe the law professor quote (second one) belongs there, it is in bad faith if you put it in the same category as the others. Yes, there are both academics and experts that do call for solidarity with Palestinian people. That doesn’t mean siding with Hamas or sympathizing with the most extreme and radical of Hamas’ branches.

One can be critical of Hamas’ ideological extremism and terrorist attack, while also not supporting the extremely disproportionate force that was used by Netanyahuw and the far right governmental apparatus that is in power right now in Israel.

The facts show us that 30 000+ people have now died in the bombings the IDF and Israeli far right part of the government have committed since the start of the offensive. A significant amount of those are innocent children and women, as well as civilians. That is 20x more than the 1140 casualties during Hamas’ border terrorist attack. While I understand the geopolitical interest in there being a strong response to terrorist endeavours unto a sovereign territory or nation, coming from another territory… We should look back at the failure that was the Irak war post 9/11, the Vietnam war and other endeavours which also killed tens of thousands, yet brought nothing of value to the people whose country’s government initiated it. It only wasted countless of young lives by sending them to armies to kill mostly unarmed civilians that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack that was inflicted on them.

IDF and Israel, as a self proclaimed democratic nation, had interest in promoting defence of their territory, investing in even more defence after the incident. And limiting their retaliatory force to something REASONABLE, not disproportionate as they are doing now what many international law organizations are increasingly calling a massacre… because it is. The same number of civilian casualties as there are now, it took years in many other wars (Irak, etc) to get there… Israel caused that in a matter of weeks. It is not on the level of the invasion of Russia in Ukraine in terms of casualties, but it is the second most significant war that is actually going on in term of displacement of people and chaos caused. Of course, I am not comparing Israel to Ukraine, Israel had a legitimate reason to defend itself after its most deadly terrorist attack in substantial years, to react in some way. Russia simply invaded as a long time planned scenario to annex part of another sovereign country illegally, imperialism and conquest and unilaterally attack.

However, you can’t deny that the casualties are extremely high for such a short lived offensive. Making millions pay in blood and massacre for the actions of some terrorist sub-organization that truly were responsible for that offence, not the whole Palestinian people of millions… that is cruel and barbaric. It is Genghis-Khan or Ancient times levels of brutality and vengeance, “make a whole people pay for the crimes of a few, spare no women or children, decimate their will to live and to exist”. But it will only cause the cycle of hatred to grow from the other side, as the descendants of all of those who died will seek vengeance in return and intensify he cycle of hatred towards Israel, a vicious cycle which will only get worse after this.

I don’t get what is Israel’s government end goal with all of this. “Eradicating Hamas” is not ≠ “Eradicating 15% of a people’s population”, those kind of endeavours haven’t been seen since WW2. And it is strange that Jewish people, that were themselves victims of a mass scale genocidal attempt a 80 years ago, and managed to survive… Are now forced to endure their main representative government trying to instigate such a large scale war right now that is condemned by most international law institutions for being unnecessarily brutal and disproportionate. It is irrational and driven by senseless vengeance and bloodlust of a few extremist far right high ranking people.

There were protests I saw personally of Jewish people protesting against the way this war was pushed and the extent it has gone. In major cities across NA. I am sure a lot of jewish people in Israel do not outwardly support the extent of the offensive. Not everyone who critiques the government’s decisions are necessarily “Pro-Hamas” and whatnot. One can be against Hamas and against what Netanyahou’s gang is doing right now.

Oh wow, a suicide squad fan. One of those. How lucky am I to run into one in the wild! ❤️

Already we can see how low your IQ is,

and how much of a disappointment to your parents you are, all in a single glance.

And borderline and histrionic tendencies are apparent…

is it nice, living with a personality disorder?

How’s that going for your love life, Amber Heard?

Do you find yourself constantly attracted to violent people who abuse you or neglect you?

The Harley Quinn fascination is not only a childish pattern of sexual regression for you,

that you use to escape the bleak reality of your mediocre and boring real life,

it shows something deeper about your personality,

your shallowness,

your superficiality,

and how childishly you act in real life for someone your age. You are an interesting fella. One of those.

Looks like somebody is a little sensitive snowflake that got triggered by me calling out pedophiles.

That’s a big red flag. Recognizing yourself in that?

Does that remind you of memories from when you were a kid? When yourself were abused?

Go diddle your tiny little wiener or finger your dry dusty v-jay to little kids somewhere else, dirty pedo. We don’t like you kind around here.

Go masturbate with razor blades and the world will become a better place.

Either that or your mom having aborted the 20 IQ, waste of oxygen… thing that you are. But it’s too late for that.

All in all: please don’t reproduce.

You will make the gene pool dumber for doing so and pollute the human species with your bad, idiotic genes.

We already have too many idiots running around taking up space and oxygen from the rest of us.

Please don’t reproduce, ok?

Thank you darling. Bless your heart ❤️

What’s that? You trying to say something, I hear?

Poor thing, can’t even communicate properly, with that attention span shorter than a goldfish…

A thing not able to type a coherent sentence and probably stuck in a dead end job that pays poorly,

along with a partner who settled for you and that probably doesn’t love your idiotic ass,

everyday secretly wishing

they didn’t let themselves get enmeshed with a thing with the intelligence of a mentally challénged goldfish.

A thing with no good prospects in life whatsoever.

A disappointment to their parents and everybody that ever had to take care of you at some point.

Is this really how you turned out? What a shame.

Thank you so much for reminding me how lucky I am not to be you.

Being rich and in a better position in life that you will ever be fills me with joy, also knowing that when you are broke and divorced,

in a dead end mundane job you hate and despairing over not seeing your kids ever again because they hate your low IQ alcoholic as.s…

I’ll be thriving with my friends on a private yacht, having the time of our lives, just like we did last year.

Thank you for making me so grateful not to be born in a brain with such low mental capacity. You made my week.

Oh wow, a suicide squad fan. One of those. How lucky am I to run into one in the wild! ❤️

Already we can see how low your IQ is,

and how much of a disappointment to your parents you are, all in a single glance.

And borderline and histrionic tendencies are apparent…

is it nice, living with a personality disorder?

How’s that going for your love life, Amber Heard?

Do you find yourself constantly attracted to violent people who abuse you or neglect you?

The Harley Quinn fascination is not only a childish pattern of sexual regression for you,

that you use to escape the bleak reality of your mediocre and boring real life,

it shows something deeper about your personality,

your shallowness,

your superficiality,

and how childishly you act in real life for someone your age. You are an interesting fella. One of those.

Looks like somebody is a little sensitive snowflake that got triggered by me calling out pedophiles.

That’s a big red flag. Recognizing yourself in that?

Does that remind you of memories from when you were a kid? When yourself were abused?

Go diddle your tiny little wiener or finger your dry dusty v-jay to little kids somewhere else, dirty pedo. We don’t like you kind around here.

Go masturbate with razor blades and the world will become a better place.

Either that or your mom having aborted the 20 IQ, waste of oxygen… thing that you are. But it’s too late for that.

All in all: please don’t reproduce.

You will make the gene pool dumber for doing so and pollute the human species with your bad, idiotic genes.

We already have too many idiots running around taking up space and oxygen from the rest of us.

Please don’t reproduce, ok?

Thank you darling. Bless your heart ❤️

What’s that? You trying to say something, I hear?

Poor thing, can’t even communicate properly, with that attention span shorter than a goldfish…

A thing not able to type a coherent sentence and probably stuck in a dead end job that pays poorly,

along with a partner who settled for you and that probably doesn’t love your idiotic ass,

everyday secretly wishing

they didn’t let themselves get enmeshed with a thing with the intelligence of a mentally challénged goldfish.

A thing with no good prospects in life whatsoever.

A disappointment to their parents and everybody that ever had to take care of you at some point.

Is this really how you turned out? What a shame.

Thank you so much for reminding me how lucky I am not to be you.

Being rich and in a better position in life that you will ever be fills me with joy, also knowing that when you are broke and divorced,

in a dead end mundane job you hate and despairing over not seeing your kids ever again because they hate your low IQ alcoholic as.s…

I’ll be thriving with my friends on a private yacht, having the time of our lives, just like we did last year.

Thank you for making me so grateful not to be born in a brain with such low mental capacity. You made my week.

Oh wow, a suicide squad fan. One of those. How lucky am I to run into one in the wild! ❤️

Already we can see how low your IQ is,

and how much of a disappointment to your parents you are, all in a single glance.

And borderline and histrionic tendencies are apparent…

is it nice, living with a personality disorder?

How’s that going for your love life, Amber Heard?

Do you find yourself constantly attracted to violent people who abuse you or neglect you?

The Harley Quinn fascination is not only a childish pattern of sexual regression for you,

that you use to escape the bleak reality of your mediocre and boring real life,

it shows something deeper about your personality,

your shallowness,

your superficiality,

and how childishly you act in real life for someone your age. You are an interesting fella. One of those.

Looks like somebody is a little sensitive snowflake that got triggered by me calling out pedophiles.

That’s a big red flag. Recognizing yourself in that?

Does that remind you of memories from when you were a kid? When yourself were abused?

Go diddle your tiny little wiener or finger your dry dusty v-jay to little kids somewhere else, dirty pedo. We don’t like you kind around here.

Go masturbate with razor blades and the world will become a better place.

Either that or your mom having aborted the 20 IQ, waste of oxygen… thing that you are. But it’s too late for that.

All in all: please don’t reproduce.

You will make the gene pool dumber for doing so and pollute the human species with your bad, idiotic genes.

We already have too many idiots running around taking up space and oxygen from the rest of us.

Please don’t reproduce, ok?

Thank you darling. Bless your heart ❤️

What’s that? You trying to say something, I hear?

Poor thing, can’t even communicate properly, with that attention span shorter than a goldfish…

A thing not able to type a coherent sentence and probably stuck in a dead end job that pays poorly,

along with a partner who settled for you and that probably doesn’t love your idiotic ass,

everyday secretly wishing

they didn’t let themselves get enmeshed with a thing with the intelligence of a mentally challénged goldfish.

A thing with no good prospects in life whatsoever.

A disappointment to their parents and everybody that ever had to take care of you at some point.

Is this really how you turned out? What a shame.

Thank you so much for reminding me how lucky I am not to be you.

Being rich and in a better position in life that you will ever be fills me with joy, also knowing that when you are broke and divorced,

in a dead end mundane job you hate and despairing over not seeing your kids ever again because they hate your low IQ alcoholic as.s…

I’ll be thriving with my friends on a private yacht, having the time of our lives, just like we did last year.

Thank you for making me so grateful not to be born in a brain with such low mental capacity. You made my week.

Oh wow, a suicide squad fan. One of those. How lucky am I to run into one in the wild! ❤️

Already we can see how low your IQ is,

and how much of a disappointment to your parents you are, all in a single glance.

And borderline and histrionic tendencies are apparent…

is it nice, living with a personality disorder?

How’s that going for your love life, Amber Heard?

Do you find yourself constantly attracted to violent people who abuse you or neglect you?

The Harley Quinn fascination is not only a childish pattern of sexual regression for you,

that you use to escape the bleak reality of your mediocre and boring real life,

it shows something deeper about your personality,

your shallowness,

your superficiality,

and how childishly you act in real life for someone your age. You are an interesting fella. One of those.

Looks like somebody is a little sensitive snowflake that got triggered by me calling out pedophiles.

That’s a big red flag. Recognizing yourself in that?

Does that remind you of memories from when you were a kid? When yourself were abused?

Go diddle your tiny little wiener or finger your dry dusty v-jay to little kids somewhere else, dirty pedo. We don’t like you kind around here.

Go masturbate with razor blades and the world will become a better place.

Either that or your mom having aborted the 20 IQ, waste of oxygen… thing that you are. But it’s too late for that.

All in all: please don’t reproduce.

You will make the gene pool dumber for doing so and pollute the human species with your bad, idiotic genes.

We already have too many idiots running around taking up space and oxygen from the rest of us.

Please don’t reproduce, ok?

Thank you darling. Bless your heart ❤️

What’s that? You trying to say something, I hear?

Poor thing, can’t even communicate properly, with that attention span shorter than a goldfish…

A thing not able to type a coherent sentence and probably stuck in a dead end job that pays poorly,

along with a partner who settled for you and that probably doesn’t love your idiotic ass,

everyday secretly wishing

they didn’t let themselves get enmeshed with a thing with the intelligence of a mentally challénged goldfish.

A thing with no good prospects in life whatsoever.

A disappointment to their parents and everybody that ever had to take care of you at some point.

Is this really how you turned out? What a shame.

Thank you so much for reminding me how lucky I am not to be you.

Being rich and in a better position in life that you will ever be fills me with joy, also knowing that when you are broke and divorced,

in a dead end mundane job you hate and despairing over not seeing your kids ever again because they hate your low IQ alcoholic as.s…

I’ll be thriving with my friends on a private yacht, having the time of our lives, just like we did last year.

Thank you for making me so grateful not to be born in a brain with such low mental capacity. You made my day.

Fun fact: the music composer for SMRPG, Yoko Shimomura, who was the same composer for Street Fighter II (who doesn't know the glorious Guile's theme), also went on to compose the soundtrack for the Kingdom Heart series, the Mario & Luigi series and Xenoblade games. Genius in my book, right there with Nobuo Uematsu and Koji Kondo.

Yep, Paper Mario was originally supposed to be called Super Mario RPG 2 and keep the style and elements of its predecessor, but it took another direction after complications with Squaresoft. Several members of the SMRPG staff, including the the composer and directors, would later join AlphaDream and develop the Mario & Luigi series.

Fun fact: the music composer for SMRPG, Yoko Shimomura, who was the same composer for Street Fighter II (who doesn't know the glorious Guile's theme), also went on to compose the soundtrack for the Kingdom Heart series, the Mario & Luigi series and Xenoblade games.

Yep can confirm, at least were I lived in Latin America we often used it that way. Maybe it's different in Spain or other places.

r/jesuschristreddit

r/Documentaries is basically becoming Youtube-comment-section levels of retarded in the past few months. Sometimes I wonder what it must be like wasting my life trolling in a relative's basement

butt why

You have been banned from r/Pyongyang

Satire is outlawed in DPRK, dear leader would never break the law by sustaining an ironic name for greatest nation!

They put gay frogs into my water!