Are you sure this isn’t because of online dating? Or some other way of developing relationships?

So why does he want to annex it?

Yes. This didn’t happen in the UK because, instead of standing up to Trumpism, Starmer is tacking to the far-right.

Bourgeois party.

“And yes, there is also proof of that. Web search ‘higher education lower birth rate’, verbatim, and you’ll see supporting evidence. All around the world, more education, overall less babies.”

I’m asking for supporting evidence that 1) this is an active choice and 2) this is driven by men.

“Well, yes. It’s reality, playing out around us all the time, for the reasons I listed.”

So you don’t have an actual citation?

“Women open the door to the bedroom, but it is men that open the door to the home, and marriage.”

Citation needed.

“Marriage rates are on a steep decline…because men are opting out of the institution of marriage (as it is currently configured), choosing instead to cohabitate or MGTOW.”

You can’t think of any other explanation? Such as the rise in societal isolation causes by capitalism, such as the decline in third spaces, or people just having less money to spend on weddings compared to in the past?

“But specifically marriage, I just don’t know how much it benefits the man anymore, but it’s still pushed.”

Sure. I don’t think it benefits men or women. It should not be held up as a standard and instead, other options should also be presented. I don’t think this has much to do with your talking points however and I think framing opposition to marriage as being part of a gender war does more harm to the anti-amatonirmativity movement than it does help.

“One side is all pro-marriage, don’t think about it just do it. Isn’t it only fair to list some good reasons to…not?”

Which side is pro-mariage? I’m only aware of conservatives (and dumb liberals who haven’t thought through their positions, so still conservatives).

“Men’s lives are at stake.”

Not just men’s lives, but also women’s lives, the lives of queer people, especially aromantic, asexual and popyamorous people. The marriage norm is harming everyone due to it pushing a relationship norm that enables abuse. You won’t see a defense of marriage as it exists now from me.

“If you’d like to learn more straight facts & statistics, presented in as condensed of a form as possible, I recommend you check out “The Book of Numbers: Analyzing the ROI on the Pursuit of Women” by Aaron Clarey. What are the chances of getting married? Of staying married? Even if the marriage lasts, will you be, you know, happy and/or better off for having married? It’s a compelling read that makes a rock solid case for MGTOW.”

From my look at the blurb, I simply disagree that the history is driven by men’s pursuit of sex. It is driven by people’s desire to obtain food, shelter etc. to survive it’s gatekeeping by the ruling class, which yesteryear were the feudal class but are now the capitalist class. Men, women, and envies alike should unite to overthrow this class.

"Enough of society tries to tie marriage/family with life itself, and how if you fail to marry or have children, your life is meaningless. Men internalize this bullshit, and are killing themselves at record rates. Men account for 80% of suicides, and suicide is the #1 cause of death for men under 50. "

The red pill is a stupid ideology but this part is correct. But it is the capitalist class that encourages men to do this to keep them to busy to question society, organize together with women, and overthrow capitalism.

“MGTOW teaches that regardless of whether you can’t get into a relationship, or you choose not to, or you got into a bad one & it failed, that’s not a reason to end your life. You can have a happy, strong, fulfilled life sans marriage, significant other.”

You can have all of this without MGTOW.

People are being called Nazis for opposing the genocide of Palestinians. I hope you see equally how ridiculous that is.

Why do you say “zios”?

That link seems to make a strong argument to me. Do you have a counterargument?

It’s going to be more than that. It’s going to be genocide.

If the US invades Greenland, the free world should coordinate to

1. Fire a warning nuke (France)
2. Have a mass sell off of US government bonds in order to get the US to default on its debt.
3. Remove all US military bases from its borders (i.e. from Europe etc.)
4. Migrate it’s entire infrastructure away from US tech
5. Provide material and financial support to opponents of the Trump regime in the US.

Also, the reason we know about it is because Mike Waltz invited a journalist to a group chat.

You can be against that and against Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.

Nazism is when you oppose genocide, apparently.

What about renouncing them officially but then attending protests a few blocks down while wearing masks?

???

I don’t see how your comment relates to mine.

Not if they’re gay or otherwise non-heteronormative.

Indeed. They would dispensed with when no longer useful much like the US Democrats.

Two questions:

1. “it’s just that men are looking at…” Do you have any evidence that men in general are doing that? Or specifically “smarter” ones?

2. Why do you need a specific reason to not be in a relationship, as opposed to a reason to be in one?

Funny how the ruling class are so selective as to what IP counts and what IP doesn’t.