houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

And if this starts WWIII (or progresses it further if it indeed has already started), I will not be too happy either. But perhaps that is inevitable, and this is just the time it would happen. After all, there is no way that the US can remain on top of the pecking order for all time. There has never yet been a permanent empire, and that is not going to change because we are somehow special or "the good guys." No, the US will go down. How quickly that happens remains to be seen.

I swear if the US sends troops to help Israel, I am going to be mad. Yeah, how many troops did our "greatest ally" send when our military was in Iraq and Afghanistan? So we should send just as many to them.

Though it might be another opportunity of embarrassment for our troops to fumble in being helpful, otherwise show that we are not the invincible force that the US government has been proclaiming. I guess we will see.

The whole Hamas attack on Israel should be considered another consequence of the declining American empire. I am going assume that members of Hamas and other groups are not uncritically accepting what Western news propaganda proclaims to be true (e.g. UKRAINE IS TOTALLY WINNING GUYS). They know the US is weak, and they figure now is the time to attack "OUR GREATEST ALLY" when we are less capable of helping them, considering the US military's current levels of incompetence.

@sardonicsmile Having landlords included in the "real work" is sure to rile up any commies who think that they should just be able to live wherever without it costing them anything.

@Humpleupagus Not a lawyer myself, but I am quite sure there is never a case where something you said about what you are being accused of ever gives you any help in being exonerated. You can only dig yourself deeper into the hole.

Am I correct?

@PordanJeterson you need to stop reading into things that are not there. When I say it is ridiculous that this is going to be sustainable, it is because I think there will be too many Africans. I am most certainly not calling for this projection to come to fruition, but rather say that reality dictates that this will be impossible and that it will have disastrous consequences if their population does go up.

My predictions were not accompanied by calls to action. I only diagnosed an issue.

@VeganMGTOW And how will that be sustainable either? Last I checked they are a net negative in economic contribution. Even more violence may take place with government collapse, if they do not outright self deport due to them no longer benefiting economically.

And even if they are the hard working ones who are net contributors, they are not there because they love Western culture. It is for economic benefit and nothing else.

One thing I find ridiculous about the projection of the African population over the century is the assumption that the population growth will be sustainable in any way. And add in the fact that when Western governments collapse, a lot of people are going to die when food aid is no longer coming in and the violence that will likely follow.

@ButtWorldsMan @Tfmonkey >don't call 911 unless you are at risk of death

For any non-medical risk of death, this just means that the police will arrive just in time to identify your body.

@PordanJeterson >there are fertility problems occurring due to race mixing last i heard

Last I observed, there is a ton of people in Latin American countries that seem to be reproducing just fine despite the fact that many of the people there as a result of race mixing (at least from a long time ago when Spain was practicing colonialism).

Maybe that is just one example though.

@PordanJeterson I said same species, not same sub-species. Don't put words in my mouth. I would not argue that they are the same sub-species, and the image in question says "species" and not "sub-species."

@PordanJeterson >but so can a Coyote and a pittbull, are they the exact same species too?

If they can indeed produce fertile offspring, I will gladly call them the same species. I don't care about what some official taxonomy says if they are going to pick and choose which are distinct species and which are not based on inconsistent criteria. And if these people tell me otherwise, I will challenge them to apply the standard to different races of humans as well.

@PordanJeterson Real talk, the top part of the image "being distinct species" is a whole lot of stupid bullshit. I am pretty sure that the African and Eurasian Golden Jackals could produce fertile offspring, making them NOT distinct species.

My guess is that the "distinct species" is a whole lot of agenda pushing of "scientists" who are of the Atheism+ variety who are overzealous about evolution.

@Pain66 Newsflash: women do not realize how rare it is for most men to get compliments/validation/overt sexual interest from women that whoever made this comic did not realize that most men would welcome this sort of "role reversal."

@BigTLarrity The blue and yellow flag profile is both right and wrong. Yes, we do not literally see the image of an apple, but our minds can "see" in the sense that you can mentally map out what an apple looks like. I can so the same thing, such as imagining a golden lab wearing sunglasses.

If it was impossible to make this sort visualization in your head, then artists would never be able to draw anything not in front of them. No fantasy or sci-fi drawings could exist.

What a couple of idiots.

@37712 >if you leave it to libeal men and women then a better deal would be free money for women to have more kids and we all know how that works out.

I said give MEN a better deal, not women. Free money for women is not giving men a better deal. I figured that was clear enough, but if you want me to go as far as saying we should go back to full blown patriarchy, I agree. I figured that saying "men need to be given a better deal" is a great way to open the door to conversation.

So if you want to increase birth rates, give men a better deal. Men getting a better deal will mean men are more likely to accept the idea of marriage again, and you will have a good number more of children per couple.

Sure, some couples will still opt to have only 1 or 2 kids, but 1 or 2 is better than 0 when it comes to improving the overall numbers. And many married couples will want more than just 1 or 2 (if they get started early enough).

Why are there less pairings/marriages overall? It is because men see that prospect as a bad deal and want no part of a deal that could destroy them in numerous ways. It is a worse deal due to the government giving women an easy way out to destroy the marriage for as little as "I don't feel like it," as well as the women themselves choosing to forego the best years they should be giving their husband and instead expecting their future husband to wait until she is in her 30s.