Linkage: 8 August, 2017 #TheTriggering

Told you so. But don’t ever listen to me. I know nothing. Keep clinging to Google.

You might expect that teens spend so much time in these new spaces because it makes them happy, but most data suggest that it does not. The Monitoring the Future survey, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and designed to be nationally representative, has asked 12th-graders more than 1,000 questions every year since 1975 and queried eighth- and 10th-graders since 1991. The survey asks teens how happy they are and also how much of their leisure time they spend on various activities, including nonscreen activities such as in-person social interaction and exercise, and, in recent years, screen activities such as using social media, texting, and browsing the web.

The results could not be clearer: Teens who spend more time than average on screen activities are more likely to be unhappy, and those who spend more time than average on nonscreen activities are more likely to be happy.

There’s not a single exception. All screen activities are linked to less happiness, and all nonscreen activities are linked to more happiness.

Eighth-graders who spend 10 or more hours a week on social media are 56 percent more likely to say they’re unhappy than those who devote less time to social media. Admittedly, 10 hours a week is a lot. But those who spend six to nine hours a week on social media are still 47 percent more likely to say they are unhappy than those who use social media even less. The opposite is true of in-person interactions. Those who spend an above-average amount of time with their friends in person are 20 percent less likely to say they’re unhappy than those who hang out for a below-average amount of time.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/

What does The Great One, Himself keep telling you? Eliminate consequences and you eliminate progress.

So Paige is a pathological liar as well as attention whore. Great combo in a wife! /sarcasm. Because as we all must know, taking erotic selfies with a huge shit-eating come hither smirk and deliberately posting them to social media is exactly the expressiveness one would expect from a shy and introverted woman utterly perplexed that she has horny Instagram followers. /Dcupsarcasm. “fetal position” lol that her pr agent/mom expects us to believe this load of spin.

No soft skin in the game means girls are liable to make the same mistakes over and over.

Without honest social feedback and costs to pay for making bad decisions, girls will even lose the ability to know when they are diminishing their asset value.

Current Year girls with no soft skin in the game are blissfully unaware of the disgust they inspire in men when they casually mention past bad relationships with assholes, as Paige did when she admitted in print, and thus to her fiance, that before she met him she had had a lot of Netflix and chill fuck sessions in which she demanded no payment in nuptial servitude from her lovers. The Slut Life + the Thirst Life have become so ingrained in US culture — in assertion if not in actual practice — that displeasing men is an autonomic twitch in women.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/soft-skin-in-the-game/

First, CH has blamed more than women’s economic freedom for decivilization. But even this is a sleight of rhetoric. Specifically, women’s economic self-sufficiency is one of the problems; and for valid reasons that research has borne out: government largesse and full-time female employment lower the sexual market value of beta provider males.

Women are wired to desire male sexiness and male provisioning, and if women have their provisioning needs met by a substitute man — aka the government and brunch-funding post-high school credentialism — then they will prefer to spend their maximally fertile years chasing after sexy men at the expense of dependable betas.

Further exacerbating this effect is the wage gutting consequence that has accompanied mass female workforce entry, rendering a large number of lower, working, and middle class men un-marriageable. And, as I have argued here, there are SMV feedback loops in play. Empowered women tend to turn off men, who as a sex are attracted to the role of the strong man providing for and protecting the vulnerable woman. The damsel in distress isn’t a trope for no reason.

More bad reporting: Miscegenation isn’t “destroying” White civ, at least not yet. It is a long-term threat, though, to social harmony and to national greatness, because genetic obliteration is real and many nonWhite races don’t have the inborn aptitude to create and sustain high civilization. What CH find most objectionable is the cultural glorification of race mixing and the media agitprop aimed straight at the hearts and gines of the next generation of Whites. This race mixing propaganda is nothing short of an assault on White nations with the goal of reducing the numbers of unsullied Whites manning the West’s institutions and contributing to societal cohesion. The occasional mixed couple is no bother; the agenda to elevate race mixing to a moral imperative and to ridicule White preference for their own is the bother. A big bother.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/this-is-why-talking-to-the-gatekeeper-globomedia-is-a-fools-errand/

This week, The Daily Iowa, The University of Iowa’s primary newspaper, published an article introducing us to one other form of privilege that we have all ignored: COGNITIVE PRIVILEGE. “There are many kinds of privilege besides white privilege: cognitive privilege, for example” the writer argues.

“We now know that intelligence is not something we have significant control over but is something we are born with. We are living in a society in which success is increasingly linked to one’s intelligence”.

The writer, one Dan Williams, argues that much like people who are proud of their race or take pride in being born a particular gender, people who are proud of their intelligence take pride in something that they themselves had no choice and played no part in.

https://ageofshitlords.com/finally-happened-cognitive-privilege-thing-now

3. You have more propositions for sex and companionship from the opposite sex, particularly if you’re female. I don’t want to overstate this, however. I know that ugly girls and overweight girls still get literally hundreds of openers whenever they sign up to a dating site like OKCupid. Men will excitedly fuck anything. There’s a myth going around the manosphere that “ugly/fat girls can’t get laid,” and that is not accurate at all. Ugly/overweight women get laid quite a bit and with minimal effort. Regardless, it is true that the hotter you are, the more men will be hitting on you, and they won’t care if you’re already married or have a boyfriend.

4. You are more likely to attention whore via social media.

Studies show that the more into social media you are, the more likely you’ll cheat.

Since the more good-looking you are, the more likely you are to use social media, this creates a feedback loop that constantly raises the odds that you’ll cheat.

As I’ve said many times, the internet in general and social media in particular is one of the many reasons for the dramatic increase in the number of people cheating over the last several years. This started all the way back in the late 1990’s with websites like classmates.com.

5. Your partners/lovers are more likely to put up with your crap, particularly if they’re men. Guys will put up with all kinds of drama, bullshit, and even abuse from their girlfriend/wife if they perceive her to be better-looking than most. That’s why you need to be careful about this, even if you’re nonmonogamous. It’s quite pathetic, but many hot women learn this pretty quickly; they will cheat on these guys (and/or treat them like shit, and/or throw constant drama at them) and these oneitis pussies will put up with it to some degree.

http://www.blackdragonblog.com/2017/05/25/attractive-people-less-capable-monogamy-marriage/

The situation is dire and requires radical measures.

It has come to light that preschools are rife with heteronormativity:

Brace yourself for a description of the appalling thought crimes she discovered:

Playing “house,” for instance, is one area in which Gansen observed “heteronormativity” in the … preschool setting, noting that only girls would imitate mothers while only boys would play fathers. If a girl asked to be the husband of the household, she would be quickly rebuffed by her peers, Gansen observed, lamenting that “children did not allow cross-gender roles.”

http://moonbattery.com/?p=86684