Comments by "Tim Bucks" (@TimBitts649) on "Details Hidden Inside the Anti-Asian Hate Crime Bill (Pt. 3) | Josh Hawley | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

  1. 6
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9.  @Muting_all_advice  You mentioned feminism and thinking errors. Here's an example of how you might be right about that: If you look up a free study online called "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness" by Betsey Stevenson, you'll find that women have reported declining happiness over a 35 year period that was measured. Starting just after 2nd Wave Feminism in the early 1970s, researchers tracked female happiness levels. They wanted to know if the new sexual patterns in place were causing women to become happier. The early 1970s was when most women in advanced countries started to enter the work force en masse, neglect being a Mother in her 20s and instead got a job or went to school, have sexual freedom etc. So the researchers tracked women in advanced countries like Japan, Korea, European countries, the United States. Then they found a surprise. What they found was a long term and substantial decline in female happiness, worldwide in advanced countries. Despite the supposed "progress" women were making, they are getting progressively unhappier...completely counter to the claims of feminism. (Men did not track a similar happiness decline, but had a slight happiness increase, if I recall properly.) My guess to the cause of female unhappiness increases, is that our culture has been thrown badly out of whack by embracing feminism. That in fact the root cause of rising female unhappiness is evolutionary: women literally evolved to have families and are the happiest by far, when they are in stable long term relationships and having children when they are young, rather than competing with men for power. The new social patterns brought in by feminism are likely causing rising female unhappiness levels. That would be the inference I draw, from my knowledge of statistics and general social patterns, as they evolve. (but then again, I may be an evil old Patriarch) lol
    2
  10. 1
  11.  @Muting_all_advice  yeah, exactly on anti-semitism, I think to some degree, you see this because of what you said. The Holocaust gets in the way. How could this group, so persecuted, end up on top? Doesn't fit their victim narrative. When I was at university in the 1970s, the tribe in question, the government of the U.S. were keeping track of income stats on them. They were far far ahead of other groups, in household income....in official American government statistics in the fed gov't book "A Statistical Abstract of the United States." Then at some point, the American government just didn't keep track of the income of that group. I wonder why. Then this whole thing about so called "White Privilege" came along. Now the truth about income and wealth in America is pretty simple: Most of it is concentrated in the top 1%. Yeah, most of those people are "white", but only a tiny minority of white people are super wealthy. In fact the bottom 50% of whites have only 5% of national income. Most whites have next to nothing. But within that tiny minority of people who are super rich Americans, Dave's ethnic group are vastly over represented, to the point of being 50% of the richest 25 multi-billionaires. That's a lot, because they are only 1% of Americans....they are 50 times as likely to be super rich. Antisemitism is real, but it hasn't slowed them down from prospering, just like prejudice hasn't slowed down Asian Americans. But the main point is, wealth is incredibly concentrated to a few Americans, particularly within a few minority ethnic groups....and particularly one small group: Dave's. That's what the numbers say. How to keep the public dumb about this? Invent this thing called "White Privilege". Then many people will believe in that nonsense philosophy, they will direct their questions and anger at the most common type of white person: Bob the white working class truck driver...as if he has some sort of special white privilege....when if fact he's just a schmuck, struggling along, hoping to feed his three kids. It's the same with Dave's group. Ordinary people in that group are just normal Americans, the vast majority are. But they get picked on, because a few have lots of money. The vast majority of people in that ethnic group are not super rich, but people make over generalizations about people in that group, based on simplistic categories. Why is this not talked about? The elites are just trying to keep us uninformed, so we don't question things. So I think the whole "White Privilege" thing is mostly a diversion tactic by the super rich, to stop Americans from having honest, informed conversations about how America actually works. My hero George Carlin the late comedian has some famous rants about this, he figured it out, decades ago, has some famous rants about "the real owners of America"...still on you tube.
    1
  12. 1
  13.  @Muting_all_advice  On female happiness, yes what I found may be correlation, I'm willing to shift my view, if convinced. Three people that I have tuned into lately, for insight into this are Professor Sam Vaknin, an Israeli scientist on you tube. I like his video "Where have all the Wo/men gone?" I like him because everything that he says, is based on a lot of research. He's been looking into female happiness and many related things, for decades. He's on you tube. Another unlikely recent source of insight was Elon Musk. A couple days ago he released a video on how civilization itself may be in peril, due to the advanced country's low birth rate....which comes from modern feminist ideas. I like Elon's video on "Elon Musk Zone" you tube platform, called "My final warning" released two days ago. Another person with a lot of insight into this topic of female happiness and choice in the modern world, is Alex Kaschuta. She is a woman from Romania who moved to London, had a high level career in technology and finance, then ditched it, for motherhood and working at home. I saw her on Triggernometry today, the interview was called "Does progress make us miserable?"...she I think, makes a lot of sense. Based on your comments, I think you would find her interesting. There are a great many things that need to be sorted out, including as you said, better insight into psychology....much of which you are correct to say, the left gets wrong. ...so I think a lot of smart people are thinking about this now
    1
  14.  @Muting_all_advice  Yeah, I think you are right, that women don't want, what feminists say they want. They don't actually want that. So then why do they do it? My guess: What I think happens is women evolved quite heavily for in-group consensus and preference....women evolved for being with other women, forming extended family communities, based on common group or tribe identities and mostly around children. Jordan Peterson said the largest difference between men and women is that women are far more interested in people, men are much more likely interested in things. Karen Straughan has videos on this. Basically women are more likely than men, to follow social norms. So when social norms form, by powerful people...like the feminist norms now taught at school... women go along with those norms, enforce them socially...more than do men. Why do women conform? It's the same reason in reverse, that there are a hundred times more males in jail, for anti-social crimes, than females: male tend to take more risks, do stupid things, go against social norms. Women do this, far less so. So our culture has set up social norms for women, to become just like men....wanting money and recognition and power at work...to be very competitive with men, to be "equal" to men. Women have bought into this basic feminism. They should question it. Does it make you happy? Women conform to these male norms....endless work, competition, making those the center of your life, like a male would likely do....because he's male. I think that's a bad option for women. It leads to an unhappy life. You should watch a video by "Black Pigeon Speaks" called "left over women". My guess is women need to form an identity in the modern world, that is from a female perspective, not a male one. Sam Vaknin talks about this a lot. Women have basically taken a male identity to adapt to the modern world, rather than the female identity like their grandmothers had.......being Mother and social center of the community and family. This is causing women a lot of grief, in my opinion. It just isn't right.
    1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20.  @Muting_all_advice  Yeah, good comment on separate gender groups for some things and visiting the Amish and what you noticed on gender roles and separation in some areas. I think the genders appreciate each other more, like that. Also the women in the Amish communities, they get what they want and need: financial security for life, a social circle, a sense of meaning, children and family and extended family. They have much better lives than most women in affluent American suburbs. I've been to both, seen both up close....No wonder the birth rates and family size in those Amish communities are so high...highest in the world. In the Amish community, it's not everything women or men need, there are limitations to that pattern, mostly centered around lack of choice. But in that Amish pattern I'd say, there are things that work well. The Amish work because they follow tribal patterns, which are central to our evolution. Amish social structure and sexual norms are in line with evolutionary patterns that work....they are variations on Patriarchal patterns, based on making women and children the center of life, the center of male obligations. The economics of the Amish work very well, because the ones better at management and money look after those less inclined that way. Those good at mechanics do their thing etc. So the Amish community organizational structure also resemble the same reasons that modern corporations are a useful tool for economic advancement: large groups of people cooperate on common rules. The talented ones lead. In one case it's religious rules, in the other case corporate rules...these are variations of the same thing, really. This takes advantage of the variability in human talent, allowing the talented to flourish, while taking care of the vulnerable. We would be better off finding variations on that Amish/corporate pattern: For instance in Hungary the government gives financial bonuses and long term security to women who have a lot of kids. My guess is architects and city planners should use evolutionary insights to plan cities so women can more naturally and easily form circles of women who can depend on each other for child care and social support....sort of cities full of little tribal units. So my view of the Amish is that they are not so much backwards as some believe, but instead closer to the natural truth in many ways.
    1
  21.  @Muting_all_advice  I find it hilarious, this claim of "objectifying" of women. Because sorry, but the way men are wired, the thing men value most in women, is her physicality and youth. Again, being horny just comes from evolution, for procreation. It's a sign of female power over men, our desire for women. So I find it amusing that the thing that gives women the most power over men is the thing women supposedly object to. Yeah men "objectify" women all the time, if you mean think of them sexually. When I was a horny teenager I thought about sex about once every 1 second, on a slow day. That's a problem? Or is that just old Mother Nature, at it again? ..meh, it's just Mother Nature, asking us to breed. Most of this talk by women, this nonsense over being "objectified" is likely women just projecting their own innate pickiness, onto men....to avoid feeling guilty of how they treat men. It's pretty obvious that for biological reasons, women are born far more picky than men. That's obviously because women get pregnant, bear a far higher burden for sex, than men. That's at the heart of evolution and mate selection, women are wired to pick the best men, to keep the species healthy. So no doubt, every woman I ever knew was picky as hell about men. One of the big mistakes women make about men is assuming their psychology matches a man's perfectly. I doubt it. There are all kinds of differences. But likely all this female bashing of men is just women projecting their own pickiness onto men, feeling guilty over that, turning the tables by claiming men are "objectifying them"....to throw men off from the obvious fact that it is females by far, that objectify the other sex, far more, because they are born picky. This often works because men are often quite dumb and willing to put up with anything from a woman, for sex. And women are born to manipulate men and to use the power of sex and the slavery of male desire for sex with women. Females play this manipulation game well. Better than men manipulate women. However I've been around long enough so I see through that nonsense...lol Penis shaming is a thing? I've never had any complaints...lol
    1
  22. 1
  23. 1