I think your controversial opinion is more correct than it is incorrect. I don't believe it's anything that an individual woman would notice consciously on a daily basis, but the idea that women are attracted to the ability of a man to provision for her and her children as a survival adaptation over time is clearly true. It's true of other mammals and primates, at least.
Because the point is not really a logical statement, but an appeal to emotion, expecting a logical refutation to a non logical statement is absurd and TBH, kinda ignorant of all the kinds of valid discussion humans have all the time.
Do you really think is reasonable to demand a change of behavior in women instead of maybe demanding the same from men?
Do you really think men with a couple are no longer part of the competition drivel?
I must be confused. I didn't read his controversial opinion as a demand, I read it as an observation. It's as unreasonable to expect women to counter their nature as it would be to tell men to stop preferring youth and beauty.
> If women chose something different, perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth.
You know, I care a little about the framing. It can be that women could choose something different, or maybe men can also choose to not be part of the rat race, maybe it can be both, or maybe as you mentioned, it’s an impossible scenario. I don’t know with what I’ve read about what we know (and mostly don’t know about human mind) and with humanity’s history I choose to be careful with what it’s human nature and what could change.
But anyway the statement is as it is, and assigns responsibility mostly to women, which can be an assumption that women have more agency than men, or just blaming the opposite sex; as common in incel ideology. Not really reasonable either way IMO.
My first night training Brazilian Jiu Jitsu was a similar experience. In BJJ you spar at 100%, because it's relatively safe to do so. You tap your opponent's body or the mat to signify submission. Tapping basically means 'you could have killed me'. Rolling with someone who is only one belt higher than me feels like drowning, and the first time your opponent takes your back and is choking you is the time when a lot of people panic. Learning to control my breath and the feeling of panic in order to fight to get to a better position has made a lot of other problems in my life seem small and insignificant.
Thought this would be an interesting thought experiment for engineering the best solution to the problem. I guess since Colombia isn't that rich it would have to be feasible economically, too.
The thrust of the article had nothing to do with PC as a violation of free speech, but rather a discussion of the social currency that can be cheaply bought by holding the right opinions (at least outwardly).
The point about how not everyone can hold the high moral ground relative to everyone else is well made though, and the Nirvana analogy is perfect.
I've found Martial Arts helpful to get myself out of my head and take the edge off the monkey energy that isn't being released through my sedentary, code -> video games -> sleep lifestyle through the working week.
In particular, pick one that's as close to actual combat as possible. MMA is great, but perhaps too intense. I've started training brazilian jiu jitsu and can't recommend it enough. Something about fighting for your life against someone who could easily put you to sleep/manhandle you that's therapeutic.
