deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Nowhere in this thread has anyone discussed issues that exclusively affect men. There are very few such issues and all of them are trivial.

Most of my fellow men are not even human. It’s hard to relate to them.

EDIT: Am I wrong? Aside from a handful of academics, a few folks here and there, the vast majority are just rabid animals.

I wish so much that I was wrong, but I am not.

My fellow American men are unfeeling morons. They revile science, art, philosophy, nature, meaning — literally anything and everything that matters. Their lives are nothing but self-fellating gratifications and consumerism: sports, trucks, video games. For every intelligent American man there are 5 barely sentient unempathetic subhumans whose lives are as shallow as they are meaningless.

That is what I have learned in my 30 years on this planet. The number of good men I’ve met — just met — I can count on the fingers of one hand.

Oh yeah, good point.

It falls short because researching manosphere conspiracy theory bullshit is not exactly easy.

The Latino men are one example. My point is that Democrats focused on policy and policy is ineffective when the electorate is a bunch of barely sentient macho dipshits angry about economic issues they can’t understand (not to mention most young men are broke and can’t get laid). You use populism. You blame the rich. You blame the wealthy elites. You channel Bernie Sanders.

Every other sentence out of Harris’s mouth should have been about the billionaires stealing from the working class. Instead we saw a bunch of well reasoned economic policy that went completely over everyone’s head.

Yes, we should definitely move to address their issues, which begin and end with the fact that young men are entitled uneducated macho losers who love expensive cars and worship illiteracy.

What exactly do you want the government to do about that?

EDIT: downvoting me will not alter reality.

Issues affecting young women:

1. Rapes aren’t prosecuted
2. Government forced births
3. Bleeding out in a parking lot
4. Widespread misogyny

Issues affecting young men:

1. Girls won’t put out
2. There aren’t enough pickup trucks
3. Joe Rogan is being victimized by jews
4. Germ theory and masks or something

How exactly can a political party address what is for men essentially a collection of toxic culture issues?

Delusional

I’m afraid exit polls say otherwise. Kamala’s economic policies were the most left wing we’ve seen in decades (a wealth tax?). If people cared about actual economic issues, such as inequality, they’d have elected her.

This election was lost because Latino men voted for Trump (for starters). We needed populism, not progressivism, to appeal to the small minded American voter. Don’t you see that? Most American men are misogynistic, racist psychos. And they’re unhappy. You appeal to them with populism full stop.

You’re not wrong. I just think phones do too much as it is. I have like 5 computers, and I don’t need my phone to do everything. But what it does it has to do perfectly.

That’s not my experience but congrats

I have both, and the iOS integration of basic features is insane. Consider examples like… passwords; I’ll get a verification code in a text message or an email and it’ll auto populate and then delete the message. There are so many features like that, which make your phone a seamless part of the “ecosystem.” Android is the opposite. You need an app to do anything and it will require setup and it won’t work every time.

Convenience is what matters. Bootloaders and codecs are not as important as whether my earbuds connect instantly and 100% of the time. A phone should make my life simpler. Etc.

Lamar and Drake are barely sentient narcissists. Don’t worry, no danger of offending them since they can’t read.

Chomsky vs Skinner was the original Kendrick Lamar vs Drake.

This comparison is extra ironic because their argument was over language acquisition and neither Lamar nor Drake can read.

Your responses are so unhinged. Is your ego that fragile? What’s the point? Why not just learn from your mistake and do better next time?

That doesn’t sound like “thank you.” Regardless, feel free to adopt some version of the syllogism above, so that you can have more honest conversations with people in the future. Clarity is important if you’re interested in getting to the truth. It’s a shame we wasted so much time and now can no longer debate the actual premises of your dumb argument. That’s the fun part, after all.

The Universal Grammar (UG) hypothesis is the idea that human languages, as superficially diverse as they are, share some fundamental similarities, and that these are attributable to innate principles unique to language.

• Premise 1 (UG): Human languages share an underlying structure.

• Premise 2: LLM’s can be trained to use human languages without the need for any underlying structure. Such an underlying structure is unnecessary for language acquisition.

• Therefore, (UG) is false.

Not bad for a first attempt. Unfortunately, the argument above is assuming the consequent. Just because it is not necessary for something to be true, doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Let’s try again.

• Premise 1 (UG): Human languages share an underlying structure.

• Premise 2: LLM’s can be trained to use human languages without the need for any underlying structure. Such an underlying structure is unnecessary for language acquisition.

• Premise 3: Human minds and brains operate in a manner relevantly similar to LLM’s, at least when it comes to language acquisition.

• Therefore, (UG) is false.

This argument is (almost) valid.

Of course, I would push back on both premise 2 and premise 3, which are difficult to believe and would require a lot of empirical evidence, but at least we’re clear about our claims.