CuriousCat Archive Page 38 of 202

  1. Was Jesus woke?

    jesus was based and heavenpilled

  2. Are you OK with that? (Different anon again)

    in response to Different anon: I'm a Vaush viewer and that's where this critique came from. I appreciated reading your responses that elaborated and clarified the background info. To the original anon: I really, really recommend checking out the links on allyship that were in the description of The Cost of Doing Business. I like Vaush too but it's super important for white people who want to fight racism to not get all your information about race and racism from other white people. This isn't to say never read or listen to anything by white people but there's so much that gets left out and hearing it from POC themselves will give you a much, much fuller picture, and this especially helpful when you actually get involved in IRL activism.

    why do you ask?

  3. Good idea.

    in response to You care enough to look or no? (Oh also diff anon)

    even if it's positive, it is a deeply uncomfortable feeling for me! though any time someone makes a work of their own that mentions/quotes me, that makes me very happy. :)

  4. Are you part of Antifa?

    it's not an organization you join, really. I have shown up at antifascist events and do work that resists fascism, so I would call myself an antifascist.

  6. (different anon)
    Are those problems really inherent to crypto? I've always had the sense that most of "crypto bad" comes from the baggage the silicon valley grifters have saddled it with. I mean, the energy cost is a real thing, but I know there are also far more energy efficient ways of doing it (like orders of magnitude).

    The original pitch that roped a lot of people in was a decentralized digital currency, and that still seems like it's worth at least examining to me. Or maybe commodifying everything was always going to be the conclusion and they got me. I don't know. It just sucks that every time we get a new technology that enters the discourse, even the word we use to refer to it (see also: "AI") rapidly becomes indistinguishable from horrible techbro scams and it becomes impossible to talk about potential non-shitty uses for it.

    in response to what's the main issues with cryptos?

    I think we need to clarify something here: all we need to have a decentralized currency is for people to agree something is currency. leaves. stamps. punches on your rewards card towards a free coffee. Team Fortress 2 players created an entire economy out of trading digital hats. you don't need "crypto" to decentralize money.

    what crypto does that these systems don't is force scarcity on the currency. the algorithms make it so each successive coin takes more time to "mine," increasing the value of each and placing an upper limit on how much money can enter the system. in short: it forces the limitation of supply necessary to create a market. if *all* the currency did was measure the amount of labor and resources that went into a good/service (the thing we say money was invented to do), it would facilitate exchange but there'd be no limitation on supply, and if there's no limit on supply then supply might abundantly meet demand, and if supply fully meets demand you can't sell at a profit, and if you can't sell at a profit then there's no capitalist market. the only thing crypto does that any random thing functioning as a currency doesn't is CREATE SCARCITY. this is why they apply it to infinitely-reproducible things like JPEGs and MP3s and fucking Skyrim horse armor: they see the lack of scarcity, and therefore the lack of capitalism, as a problem crypto is here to solve.

    if you don't trust the US government having control over your currency, by all means, support mutual aid; support barter economies; support share-and-share-alike agreements; support any fiat currency not tendered by a government. but if you insist that currency be crypto, it's solely because you want the same thing government money does but unregulated and hypercapitalist. it's a garbage product.

    for further study, watch Dan-O: https://youtu.be/YQ_xWvX1n9g?si=YY0GrDoY16DltkiV

  7. Have you heard of Michael Parenti?

    not sure. name sounds vaguely familiar and looking at his bibliography I *think* I've heard of Against Empire? it's published by City Lights and I used to go there when I lived in San Francisco, might've seen it on the shelves.

    don't think I've read anything of his.

  8. Different anon: I'm a Vaush viewer and that's where this critique came from. I appreciated reading your responses that elaborated and clarified the background info.

    To the original anon: I really, really recommend checking out the links on allyship that were in the description of The Cost of Doing Business. I like Vaush too but it's super important for white people who want to fight racism to not get all your information about race and racism from other white people. This isn't to say never read or listen to anything by white people but there's so much that gets left out and hearing it from POC themselves will give you a much, much fuller picture, and this especially helpful when you actually get involved in IRL activism.

    in response to I've recently heard a critique of your "Cost of Doing Business" video that the way you frame white progressive college students as being largely unanimous that ignoring a conservative provocateur's event is the best approach isn't reflective of what happens in reality. Another part of the critique is the assertion that choosing not to protest necessarily puts minorities in more danger than choosing to protest, that there could be scenarios where choosing to protest doesn't actually help. Could you elaborate more on the thought process behind the intro to that video? Honestly I always thought that the intro to that video was the weakest aspect of it but I'm willing to listen to you defending it.

    my name's in that guy's mouth a lot more than his is in mine

  10. she said do you rizz me i told her in ohio i only love my gyat and my chungus im sorry

    I hate that I understood this

  11. do you like boobies

    ( . Y . )

  12. what's the main issues with cryptos?

    in response to I'm as skittish about fist currency as the next awful nerd, but how does a person play-pretend that weights of gold or silver have inherent value? Do these folks think precious metals are given value by divine mandate?

    crypto is an energetically expensive way of making non-capitalist things capitalist and making capitalist things moreso. they apply artificial scarcity to digital things so LOADS more human interactions can be turned into unregulated marketplaces. the way billionaires buy art so they can keep it in storage for 8 years while it appreciates? how that turns expressive works into commodities whose meaning is irrelevant, it's just a thing that can be sold at a profit? how about we do that with jpegs, with video game dlc, with mp3s? isn't all intrinsic value actually just unrealized financial potential? and how about we burn more energy than a small country doing it?

  13. Were you aware that the first newspaper to report on the Holodomor and refer to it as a genocide belonged to the Nazi Party?

    "the truth is the opposite of whatever Nazis say" isn't a reliable heuristic. they report facts if the facts are beneficial to them.

  16. Did you see Vaush's reaction to your Cost of Doing Business video he did a few days ago?

    no

  17. Is life under feudalism better than life under capitalism? I hear that from some leftists, but they usually tend to be tankies or tankie-adjacent. I can buy that capitalism isn’t that much better than feudalism, but not that feudalism was better.

    I mean, I'm no historian. there are surprising ways in which feudal peasants were freer than you'd expect; arguably freer than us! I mean, European peasants basically controlled the entire means of production: they grew their own food, made their own clothes, thatched their own cottages. didn't need permits, didn't have to buy the materials. and a lot of trade was share and share-alike: the community worked to make sure everyone was fed, every home was secure, every horse shod. money was mostly only used at The Market, which was more for trading BETWEEN towns than among locals.

    and there are a lot of ways life is better now that have little too so with capitalism. it's less that "life is better under capitalism" than "life is better with indoor plumbing," "life is better after the industrial revolution," "life is better under democracy," etc. I don't know that capitalism's spread across Europe can be said to have drastically improved the lives of the average citizen.

    obviously, life is much better now! and I'm sure parts of that are attributable to capitalism. but I hesitate to sing capitalism's praises, as its main selling point seems to be "not feudalism."

  18. Is there a woman to blame?

    was it mother?

  19. Polyamorous people are fat dorks; polygamous people are chad sheikhs with a harem of wives. There is a difference.

    fat hot and happy, fucko

  20. Is Bernie Hot?

    yeah he's bernin' up

  22. Orwell is boring and 1984 and Animal Farm are only popular because they are easy books for an English class and readily fit into western cold war propaganda. They're alright but they're not even close to the top 500 best books of the 20th century. Eat shit if you disagree i don't care.

    well you wrote me about him unprompted so I think you do care my good bitch

  24. What are some interesting tofu dishes you make?

    in response to Got any cooking tips?

    I made this jerk tofu wrapped and seared in collard greens with crushed peanuts and a cilantro drizzle

  25. Does the genetic record show that people were poly or that powerful men guarded access to reproduction through having multiple partners? This is a pure curiousty question, I'm poly myself and have no real concerns over anything in my life being natural.

    in response to Hoping you aren't burnt out on polyamory questions cause I kinda wanted to ask this one: I've seen people make the claim that monogamy "isn't natural" and that humans actually evolved to be polyamorous. Isn't it more likely the case that monogamy/polyamory lies on a spectrum, same as gender identity and sexual attraction? Like, there's definitely people who are "naturally" monogamous; they find their partner and that's the person for them and they never look at another person romantically or sexually again and they don't ever really think about it or feel pressured at all. (Steve Irwin's wife comes to mind; she's stated in interviews that "she had her happily ever after" and she's not planning to marry or even date again.) And there's clearly people who don't experience life that way. Can't both ways be just as valid and ethical and moral? Is it selfish to want your partner to partner with only you if that's what you're willing to commit to as well? (obviously I know expecting your partner's life to completely revolve around you is toxic, that's not what I'm suggesting)

    the historical record definitely does NOT show authoritarian paleolithic patriarchy as common. it happened about as often as extremely libertine communalism happened, if not less.

    hunter gatherers ran the gamut.

  26. It's "Seriously, hypermobility?" Ian.

    in response to Seriously, hypermobility?

    Seriously, hypermobility.

  27. Best way to type out a grunt noise

    hruntf

  28. Same anon. Full disclosure I was 12 when SpongeBob debuted and it didn’t appeal to me either. But I saw it at age 15 at the urging of some friends and I couldn’t believe what I was missing. SpongeBob has always had a sizable teen and adult fan base. If you still haven’t seen it, I’d recommend watching the first three seasons at least.

    in response to And you only watched grown-up cartoons like Daria?

    I've seen some. it's not for me. it felt like a less-edgy Invader Zim, and I didn't even like Zim very consistently.

  29. Seriously, hypermobility?

    in response to Hypermobility‽

    I'm not sure what your question is

  30. Got any cooking tips?

    always press your tofu

  31. And you only watched grown-up cartoons like Daria?

    in response to Did you even have a childhood?

    I watched whatever I felt like watching, and SpongeBob SquarePants did not appeal to 14 year old Ian

    I had a childhood when I was a child, I watched Animaniacs and Freakazoid and Ahh! Real Monsters and a lot of Ninja Turtles

  32. What did they do during the Ferguson protest?

    in response to Wait the ACLU did THAT? Why have I never heard of that? Uh, to clarify, the critique of your video specifically took issue with you framing college students the way you did because on average they are less guilty of "weaponizing or disregarding" minorities than other demographics of liberals or progressives. They took issue with the notion that white liberal college students are actually largely guilty of treating minorities as tools for getting what they want. Your video did an excellent job articulating the dynamics of white supremacy, but the intro specifically largely . . . didn't, I think.

    tried to engage ethically in complex conversations they were not ready for. lot of arguments about political correctness, people saying "all lives matter," people quoting MLK in contexts they should NOT have been, people saying "people of color" was a confusing phrase because aren't you not supposed to say "colored"?

    all extremely liberal and/or socialist and/or anarchist art school weirdos. just, you know, also nineteen years old and not done myelinating.

    and, yes, people thinking they'd cracked the code by saying we SHOULDN'T protest conservatives.

    EDIT: sorry, this is sticking in my craw. like, I know some of the people who organized the Milo Yiannapoulos protest at UC Berkeley, and I know how much pushback they got FROM THEIR OWN SIDE. just... talk to a single Black college student and ask them what kinda shit they've heard from liberal white kids. ask them if they've ever been treated as disposable by supposed progressives.

    "the intro was unconvincing" foh

  34. How much?

    in response to What, no colon?

  35. Is cracking your joints bad for someone else?

    in response to Is cracking your joints bad for you?

    my mom hates when I do it

  36. Wait the ACLU did THAT? Why have I never heard of that?

    Uh, to clarify, the critique of your video specifically took issue with you framing college students the way you did because on average they are less guilty of "weaponizing or disregarding" minorities than other demographics of liberals or progressives. They took issue with the notion that white liberal college students are actually largely guilty of treating minorities as tools for getting what they want.

    Your video did an excellent job articulating the dynamics of white supremacy, but the intro specifically largely . . . didn't, I think.

    in response to I've recently heard a critique of your "Cost of Doing Business" video that the way you frame white progressive college students as being largely unanimous that ignoring a conservative provocateur's event is the best approach isn't reflective of what happens in reality. Another part of the critique is the assertion that choosing not to protest necessarily puts minorities in more danger than choosing to protest, that there could be scenarios where choosing to protest doesn't actually help. Could you elaborate more on the thought process behind the intro to that video? Honestly I always thought that the intro to that video was the weakest aspect of it but I'm willing to listen to you defending it.

    I went back to college in my thirties to finish my degree and was on a very liberal campus during the Ferguson protests

    I promise you it's a thing

    the youth today are very progressive, but white people gonna white

  37. Why socailism always leads to a dictoatorship?

    most socialist states don't have leaders who turn into dictators, they have leaders who get shot in the head during US-backed coups

    the dictators seem to have higher survival rates against US invasion

    despite the exaggeration from folks like yourself, it DOES concern me that a nonzero number of revolutions have resulted in authoritarian governments, and that these governments have a surprising amount of support among leftists. it's why I'm so interested in the ones that DIDN'T go that way; I want to know what they did different, how they avoided that result, and what they could do to withstand the inevitable interference from capitalists.

  38. I've recently heard a critique of your "Cost of Doing Business" video that the way you frame white progressive college students as being largely unanimous that ignoring a conservative provocateur's event is the best approach isn't reflective of what happens in reality. Another part of the critique is the assertion that choosing not to protest necessarily puts minorities in more danger than choosing to protest, that there could be scenarios where choosing to protest doesn't actually help.

    Could you elaborate more on the thought process behind the intro to that video? Honestly I always thought that the intro to that video was the weakest aspect of it but I'm willing to listen to you defending it.

    I proposed a hypothetical where white liberal students largely agree not to protest. this is a thing that happens; at no point did I say it always happens, or that it's the norm, or even that these students manage to stop other folks from protesting. I only proposed it as a thing that happens, which it is. there are a dozen thinkpieces from white liberals saying "protest just gives them what they want" EVERY TIME THERE'S A PROTEST. this thinking is why the ACLU helped the Unite the Right rally get permits; they literally helped get Heather Heyer killed.

    I do wish I could talk about a thing that happens without people extrapolating that I'm saying "this is the only thing that happens" and dismissing my argument.

    per your second questions, I'll just give you a quote from the video:

    "I’ve collected as many resources as I can find by POC on what they need and want from white allies, and put them in the down-there part. There’s a plurality of opinions on this, so I recommend reading more than one. It may not always be a four-thousand-strong protest; every direct action is unique, and must be strategized in concert with the people most affected."

  39. Hoping you aren't burnt out on polyamory questions cause I kinda wanted to ask this one:

    I've seen people make the claim that monogamy "isn't natural" and that humans actually evolved to be polyamorous. Isn't it more likely the case that monogamy/polyamory lies on a spectrum, same as gender identity and sexual attraction? Like, there's definitely people who are "naturally" monogamous; they find their partner and that's the person for them and they never look at another person romantically or sexually again and they don't ever really think about it or feel pressured at all. (Steve Irwin's wife comes to mind; she's stated in interviews that "she had her happily ever after" and she's not planning to marry or even date again.) And there's clearly people who don't experience life that way.

    Can't both ways be just as valid and ethical and moral? Is it selfish to want your partner to partner with only you if that's what you're willing to commit to as well? (obviously I know expecting your partner's life to completely revolve around you is toxic, that's not what I'm suggesting)

    honestly? while there ARE poly people who feel the need to insist their relationship style is more natural, more authentic, more HUMAN than monogamy, MOST of us only have that "actually, the genetic record tells us..." argument in their pocket because we're used to monogamists telling us we're unnatural. we didn't get into this because it was more natural, we just learned it was an option, explored it, and it felt right. a lot of the arguments we end up making are just refutations of the arguments made against us.

    some people experience polyamory and monogamy the way you describe: as identities you discover about yourself similar to orientation. myself, that's not my experience. polyamory doesn't feel "innate" to me; it's a thing I chose because it works better for me. I don't feel like my monogamous years were a closet, I was just doing things in a way I wouldn't do them now. and I think a lot of people are more capable of operating either way than they realize.

    the genetic record implies that monogamy was not very common through most of early human history. what that means, to me, is less that monogamy is "unnatural" than that what FEELS natural or unnatural has a lot more to do with what you're raised to think is normal. similarly, I don't think homosexuality was so common in Ancient Greece because more people were "born that way," I think it was just normal there, and maybe more people would live queer today if it were the norm.

    for any number of reasons, monogamy has become the norm in modern life. it didn't used to be. I don't feel the naturalness of either is very important, nor that naturalness would determine what is moral or selfish. humans are very adaptable. things are how they are; they could be otherwise, and that would seem just a valid.

  40. No one is writing q drops anymore, there hasn't been one since Trump lost the election. A documentarian pretty conclusively demonstrated the person writing them was the owner of the site they were being posted on.

    in response to How do you think QAnon is going to react to the Trump indictments over the coming months? You could kind of conceptualize this from their perspective as "the Storm" but in reverse, that the Cabal is coming for Trump and his allies, and I worry how thats going to stir up thier followers now that he's faacing the tangiable prospect of actual real prison time.

    I'm surprised Qanon was convinced by evidence, they've been all m astonishingly immune to it so far

  41. Is Luigi Hot?

    extremely

  42. Which country is most likely to not really exist?

    Andorra

  43. What, no colon?

    in response to What’s your digit ratio?

    buy me dinner first

  45. Is cracking your joints bad for you?

    last I checked, it was demonstrated that knuckle cracking increases the mobility of the cracked joint, which was framed in the article as a good thing, though I'm curious whether there's a risk of hypermobility. someone disproved the theory that knuckle cracking reduces grip strength by ONLY cracking the knuckles on one hand for decades; he won an Ig Nobel Award.

  46. Do you feel bad for Mitch McConnell with his recent health issues?

    I have family members who've gone through somewhat similar things, and Mitch's struggles remind me of that, and remembering it makes me sad

    I don't feel sad for Mitch himself

    it's not like Mitch would've cried for my grandfather

  47. What’s your digit ratio?

    69

  48. Once, but I wasn't that invested in it, nor was I even brought up in a very pious household. My life feels empty and without meaning, so I'm wondering if Christianity could and should try to fill in that gap.

    in response to Should I become a born-again Christian?

    if you're looking for purpose, it wouldn't hurt to go to church a few times and see if that does something for you. I wouldn't recommend jumping straight to born again unless you're certain religion is the thing your life is missing.

    fwiw, you're always welcome at your local democratic socialist meetup, comrade.

  52. Having a number of close friends is considered normal and having several close friends that you are sexually intimate with is considered obscene because in the former case you won't get gonorrhea

    in response to Reading this obviously highly secure person's monogamy apologia made me think about how people arbitrarily draw a distinction between sexual relationships and non sexual relationships. As in, having several platonic close friends that you spend a lot of time with is considered normal, but having several close friends that you are sexually intimate with is considered obscene. It's like, people accept that a lot of friendships aren't lifelong and it's normal to grow apart, but because two adults mutually consent to sexy fun times, they're expected to be lifelong soulmates and must exclude other adults from their bedrooms. Uh, am I making a cogent point?

    gonorrhea? seriously? are you from the 1950's?

    it is common in poly communities to get tested regularly, to ask a potential partner's status before entering into a sexual relationship, and to have established practices around protection. because you are not just putting yourself at risk, but your whole polycule. like, we're, on average, a lot better about this than the "casual dating" dude who sleeps with several people a year (who is not considered "obscene" even if he gets around more than we do).

    EDIT: fwiw poly communities are less concerned with the clap these days, though "treatment resistant gonorrhea" is a thing people have to keep an eye on, but for the most part it doesn't seem to be spreading much. the greater concerns are HPV (because AMABs can't get tested for it, and insurance often won't cover vaccines) and herpes (because it's VERY common, condoms don't fully protect against it, and the tests are harder to get and somewhat less accurate than other STI tests). these are, for the record, things ANY sexually active person should be aware of! and, again, the average poly person is more likely to take precautions than the average sexually-active-but-planning-to-settle-down-monogamously person.

  53. Should I become a born-again Christian?

    how many times have you been born Christian so far?

  54. What do you think about the movie Elephant from Gus Van Sant?

    I never watched the whole thing. I have read Mike D'angelo's opinions on it and, while he and I disagree on movies a lot, it sounds like a movie I would HATE.

    https://letterboxd.com/gemko/film/elephant-2003/1/

  55. If the life of a child is more valuable than the life of an adult because of the child's future potential, wouldn’t that also apply to fetuses in the topic of abortion?

    I would reject this conclusion even if I agreed with the premise, which I don't.

    a fetus is not a child; a fetus is a fetus.

  56. Why does Jill Stein get all the flack for spoiling 2016 when she only got one percent of the popular vote? Gary Johnson received three percent and nobody gripes as hard as they do about Stein.

    Johnson wasn't a spoiler for Clinton; Stein was. and there's nothing liberals love more than to dismiss their failings by punching left.

  57. I don't know too many poly people to ask, and I imagine you also know several poly people who you aren't in a relationship with, so I figured I'd get a good perspective here:

    In your experience, do poly people who live together tend to share/split finances? I've got a pet theory that one of the appeals of polygamy, consciously or not, is that it provides the kind of financial stability that you might get in, say, a large family that all lives in one house. Is this the case for you or anyone you know?

    like a lot of things with poly, most people have to make up the rules as they go. monogamy has a template: you'll date, move in together, get married, have a shared bank account, etc. plenty of people deviate from that, but there's still a map from which to deviate. polyamory doesn't really have that, so it tends to be a lot of conversations and logisticating and seeing what works *for this polycule* and not assuming the things you work out will continue in future arrangements.

    so: some folks split things equally; some folks split things by percentage of income; sometimes one grouping has been living together a while before a new partner moves in, which means the original folks might be the homeowners/on the lease while the new person contributes rent more like a tenant; some folks buy in like shares in a co-op (especially useful in a big house where everyone's dating SOMEONE but not everyone's dating EVERYONE); some folks do a "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need," where low-earners may pay less rent but do more housework; etc. etc. etc.

    BROADLY, though, yeah: poly cohabitation allows you to split costs/labor in more ways, and several of my metamours share a house that they DEFINITELY could not afford without each other. I've also seen duplexes/multi-unit houses where anchor partners each have a floor/side of the house and shared partners transit freely between them.

  58. I'm kind of confused with this thread because it seems like monogamy is being defined as having one partner for life, while I am fairly sure it means having one partner *at a time* (substitute -gamy for -amory for romantic partners instead of sexual ones). I'm sure there are segments of society that are really incisive about marriage for life, but as far as I understand divorce doesn't invalidate monogamy.

    in response to Reading this obviously highly secure person's monogamy apologia made me think about how people arbitrarily draw a distinction between sexual relationships and non sexual relationships. As in, having several platonic close friends that you spend a lot of time with is considered normal, but having several close friends that you are sexually intimate with is considered obscene. It's like, people accept that a lot of friendships aren't lifelong and it's normal to grow apart, but because two adults mutually consent to sexy fun times, they're expected to be lifelong soulmates and must exclude other adults from their bedrooms. Uh, am I making a cogent point?

    "one partner for life" is generally the AIM of monogamy. but, agreed, divorce isn't seen as a blow against monogamy, and I feel like a lot of people see polyamorous relationships falling apart as a blow against polyamory.

  59. Should I be worried that I'm not getting enough Vitamin D and/or Magnesium?

    are you anxious and/or depressed?

  60. Would most Christian conservatives like Matt Walsh be admitted to the kingdom of god for following his teachings and repenting for their sins, despite having extremely problematic political beliefs? Like, I don't think there's a bible verse saying "thou shall not be bigoted towards trans people".

    there is most definitely a Bible verse that says "judge not lest ye be judged"

    like that bit was not ambiguous

  61. Reading this obviously highly secure person's monogamy apologia made me think about how people arbitrarily draw a distinction between sexual relationships and non sexual relationships.

    As in, having several platonic close friends that you spend a lot of time with is considered normal, but having several close friends that you are sexually intimate with is considered obscene. It's like, people accept that a lot of friendships aren't lifelong and it's normal to grow apart, but because two adults mutually consent to sexy fun times, they're expected to be lifelong soulmates and must exclude other adults from their bedrooms.

    Uh, am I making a cogent point?

    in response to Obviously, shaming poly people is ‘so hot right now’- but I had a bit of a realization the other day of something that poly people could benefit from trying to understand about monogamy… There’s a slew of polyamorous communities online that use human biology as a sort of “gotcha” for explaining why monogamy isn’t natural (humans weren’t evolved to be with one partner forever, people historically were polygamous, etc.), but what poly people fail to realize is that since this is essentially true, it only bolsters the importance of monogamy; you are literally defying your own biology and social dynamics after thousands of years of cultural norms to commit to one person physically and emotionally despite your instincts telling you to fuck everything that moves. How much more romantic can that be? You’re essentially saying “I love you so much that I will risk never being with anyone else ever again to have a life with you”. I don’t want to put every monogamous relationship on a pedestal, but this dynamic is truly sacred, and nobody can convince me otherwise. If I was a woman and my man wanted to open the relationship, I would be incredibly insulted that what I had to offer wasn’t enough. Also people- no amount of partners will “fill the void inside you” (lol). It’s a childish and selfish behavior to desire a harem of people to fulfill your hierarchy of needs (one emotionally, one sexually, etc.). Real relationships take compromise, and acknowledging that you will never “have it all”, will set free from expecting that you are to be owed the world. We’ve clearly evolved past the point of fucking like human cattle to populate the earth, therefore “invented” dynamics such as commited relationships are created because we have the luxury of being able to live in the modern age, rather than surviving and fornicating for the successional benefit of our species. I think it’s a massive cop out that poly people use the “human instinct” argument to essentially justify cheating. Morality aside, it clearly cheapens the relationship. Personally- I think shit or get off the pot. If you wanna fuck as many people as you physically can- great! Just don’t pretend that what you share with your “primary partner” is at all reflective in the slightest of a committed relationship. Also I don’t wanna be told by some overweight Marvel movie-binging poly fuck that anything about my life is “unnatural”. Sorry that was mean.

    yeah, it reminds me of when people say "I've never seen polyamory work," as if MOST relationships don't end in breakups

  62. Not that your videos aren't well watched and received, but: if you could make 1 video that would get a guaranteed 50 million views, what would be the subject? Selecting a video you already made works too.

    mm, probably something about Capitalism Bad

  64. Did you even have a childhood?

    in response to best spongebob episode

    I was in high school when SpongeBob came out

  66. Best film?

    in response to best spongebob episode

    the one with keanu

  67. Obviously, shaming poly people is ‘so hot right now’- but I had a bit of a realization the other day of something that poly people could benefit from trying to understand about monogamy…

    There’s a slew of polyamorous communities online that use human biology as a sort of “gotcha” for explaining why monogamy isn’t natural (humans weren’t evolved to be with one partner forever, people historically were polygamous, etc.), but what poly people fail to realize is that since this is essentially true, it only bolsters the importance of monogamy; you are literally defying your own biology and social dynamics after thousands of years of cultural norms to commit to one person physically and emotionally despite your instincts telling you to fuck everything that moves.

    How much more romantic can that be? You’re essentially saying “I love you so much that I will risk never being with anyone else ever again to have a life with you”. I don’t want to put every monogamous relationship on a pedestal, but this dynamic is truly sacred, and nobody can convince me otherwise. If I was a woman and my man wanted to open the relationship, I would be incredibly insulted that what I had to offer wasn’t enough.

    Also people- no amount of partners will “fill the void inside you” (lol). It’s a childish and selfish behavior to desire a harem of people to fulfill your hierarchy of needs (one emotionally, one sexually, etc.). Real relationships take compromise, and acknowledging that you will never “have it all”, will set free from expecting that you are to be owed the world.

    We’ve clearly evolved past the point of fucking like human cattle to populate the earth, therefore “invented” dynamics such as commited relationships are created because we have the luxury of being able to live in the modern age, rather than surviving and fornicating for the successional benefit of our species. I think it’s a massive cop out that poly people use the “human instinct” argument to essentially justify cheating. Morality aside, it clearly cheapens the relationship.

    Personally- I think shit or get off the pot. If you wanna fuck as many people as you physically can- great! Just don’t pretend that what you share with your “primary partner” is at all reflective in the slightest of a committed relationship.

    Also I don’t wanna be told by some overweight Marvel movie-binging poly fuck that anything about my life is “unnatural”.

    Sorry that was mean.

    poly works for me; I've never said anyone should try it who doesn't want to. I have never called your relationship unnatural. I'm happy for you that that feels romantic; it would not be romantic for me. I haven't even watched a Marvel movie in a while.

    I apologize on behalf of whatever poly person hurt your feelings. I'm just here living my own life and having my own relationships, I don't know why you came in telling me my relationships are fake and none of my partners actually love me. that's a weird thing to say. you ok?

  68. I mean the ones found in "Authority and American Usage", and (at high risk of sounding pretentious) might be more accurately described as semantics? maybe?

    in response to Do you agree with David Foster Wallace's thoughts on linguistics?

    haven't read that one!

  69. Have you ever considered that getting the piss scared out of you is part of the appeal? Can’t be depressed when your heart is racing at 150 BPM.

    in response to Ian you're 39 years old

    thank you for explaining horror to me

  70. Will PragerU HQ be shelled after the revolution?

    I don't think Prager would make it to "after"

  71. You’re heterophobic

    in response to *sexiest straight couple please

    look fam I gotta BE hetero every day, I shouldn't have to WATCH it as well!

  72. best spongebob episode

    uh. the one with the starfish guy and the snaildog.

  74. If there are willem dafoes, will there be a willem dafriends?

    I'd there are Willems Dafriend, are there Willems Dafiend?

Anon commented:
Ian replied: