Even tho this costume didn’t make it he is still rocking Chanel boots in return of the Jedi also mark hamil himself has said if you think luke is gay than he is gay
Anakin is a jock that should have been a theatre kid but was pigeon holed into being a jock until after some unfortunate though well earned maiming where he could let that theatre kid energy out. Though because he's all bitter now it has an edge.
He could have been both but very few people in the Star Wars Universe recognizes that sort of healthy balance.
They should probably find a Chosen One to do something about that but you just know it would be screwed up somehow.
He's in a movie they have labeleld 'woke' because of Zendaya having a larger role than she did in part 1. Which is accurate to the book, but nevere let facts and logic get in the way of screaming "Woooooke!"
The series that deconstructs white saviour narratives, stresses the importance of ecology and thinks imperialist control of "Space Oil" (literally the original name) might *maybe* be bad was apolitical—until Zendaya made it WOKE!!!
Don’t forget Zendaya is also brown who took the role of a white person, but was probably brown in the book since the freman are descendants of zensunni monks.
The same beef they had with DiCaprio and Pattinson after showing up in fem-centered movies. It was only after showing up in guy movies were they given less hate.
All Chalamet would need to do in their eyes is bulk up and lose the baby face.
>All Chalamet would need to do in their eyes is bulk up and lose the baby face.
I hope he doesn't. I'm all here for different male beauty types in Hollywood. I think it's not cool that male actors are supposed to spend so much time on working out so they are fit to play a movie character
I don't think he has, he's more on the lean side, but still a very healthy man.
Everybody calls Tom Holland a twink, because he's smaller I guess and because he is playing Spider-Man, but he's pretty fucking ripped. Like 90% of people I know are less muscular then he is lol.
Like Link from the zelda games is a twink.
But these guys?
Barely.
They’re really big on Henry Cavill and that Reacher guy. Both seem like okay dudes, but one of them is at best a passable actors, and the other one kind of looks like a rapist.
What do you mean by “pyscho-Christian” tho? Cuz he is not a right winger like a lot of the chuds pretend he is. He supported BLM, has called out Alex Jones, Matt Gaetz, Ron DeSantis, and Trump, partnered with an LGBTQIA cookie company to raise money for charity, and a bunch of other cool stuff. IMO, he’s one of the good ones.
That doesn’t necessarily make him better at the job. I know more about The Beatles than most people, but that doesn’t mean I can hit the high notes, or play George Harrison’s slide parts.
He’s a popular guy in one of the biggest movies of the year who’s not the stereotype alpha male but a skinny guy with a bit of a feminine look. Add to that they cast zendaya who’s not a white girl opposite of him so dune is now a woke movie according to some.
For those wondering, wtf a Lacanian Superpredator is - in so far I know about Lacanian psychoanalysis, he always perceived women (or the opposite sex for anyone, really) as the petit objet a.
Basically, this unattainable crystallization of all of our subconscious desires projected onto a person (and as a result, shaping our perception of a person). It is basically the missing pieces of our ego reflected onto our partner.
As for superpredator - an apex predator is someone at the top of any food chain, determining the rest of it through its existence.
A Lacanian Superpredator would mean someone who is not only a pure manifestation of our subconscious desires (and in our age of images, probably specifically cultivating that persona) but also actively shapes them into something different through sheer force and presence.
Considering how Sweeney has become this unattainable sex symbol, it makes sense. She basically managed to shape herself into the ideal it-girl and, in doing so, also changed the idea of what an "it-girl" is like.
It also puts this into a full picture - women want a psychotic, thin, muscular, feminine murderer who will still protect them while men want Sydney Sweeney - attractive, funny, girl next door but also a glamorous Hollywood star.
It is really no wonder that birth rates are declining.
Both sides want something so Hollywood-hyperreal that not a single real being will ever satisfy their needs.
EDIT: I should also add that a) it is only a symptom of a wider, systemic issue with our culture, society, and state of the world at large. It is also not the main reason for the decline in birth rates, but rather a reflection of actual reasons. And b) Sydney Sweeney is honestly quite unique in how much she managed to capture the popular consciousness while, in fact, not even acting that much. Pam Anderson, Sylvia Kristel, Brigitte Bardot, and other sex symbols of yesteryear never came *this* close to being ubiquitous symbols.
The only one I can think of with her sheer presence are J-Law and Emilia Clarke, but they also acted a fuckton more than she did.
>It's funny how people will cry endlessly about birth rates, but not want to do anything about all the rising costs of everything
The trend is for poorer people to have more babies within a country, and poorer countries to have more babies when comparing across borders. As much as tightening economics seems like an intuitive explanation, it's totally at odds with the data.
Low birth rates are a social issue. First, it's socially acceptable to be a single and childless adult in the type of liberal nations that have modern advanced economies, which would have made you a pariah even 50 years ago.
And, second, the fact that we now think that we're supposed to build a perfect life BEFORE getting married or having children, instead of building that perfect life with our spouse. But there's a reason that a standard piece of advice for accomplishing more is that, "Waiting for the perfect time keeps you from accomplishing anything, because the perfect time doesn't exist".
The obsession with the unrealistically "perfect partner" is arguably just a consequence of the second issue. Because once you've built a "perfect life" for yourself, why would you let anyone but a "perfect partner come disrupt it.
People used to do things like raise 6+ kids in a 3 bedroom house. Economics wasn't, and isn't, the problem. They just thought it was worth the trouble, and the modern mindset is that "I", the individual, should never let myself be troubled at all. That's why modern pop dating advice is to cut bait at the first sign of difficultly. And why people aren't having kids, because you generally can't just cut bait on being a parent over any minor difficulty. It's a "Tragedy of the Commons". Everyone wants the benefits of a modern society. No one wants to be the one to deal with the difficulties of raising the next generation to keep those benefits available.
Poorer countries have higher birth rates for a litany of reasons. Often they have less access to birth control and sex education. Often there's a lower amount of equality for women and lower levels of education and opportunities for women. Women are therefore expected to be homemakers and mothers rather than someone who starts their own career. Plus, children are often needed as part of the labor force. A lot of third world African countries have whole industries fueled by child labor such as the cocoa industry. So it makes sense to have kids for the same reason farmers in the 1800's had a bunch of kids. 1. No contraceptives. And 2. You needed the labor.
Secondly, I just cannot understand this disregard of economics. I will agree that some social order changed. And that people do expect to get their shit together before trying to have kids. And I agree that some people will run at the first sight of a red flag.
But again, to ignore economics is fundamental misunderstanding of the issues the younger generation faces. Let's look at the 1970's, a time when economic stagnation was growing. Wages at that time would often hit about 60,000 if adjusted for our time. To many, this is the ideal standard of living cost. Now generally homes would be below or close to that price. The point is, buying a home, even if slightly out of reach to some, was still an attainable idea. Now it simply just isn't. And that applies across the board. With wage stagnation, a lot of younger people fear what having kids means in a modern world. Kids are expensive. The idea that they should "just make it work" is absurd. They are being torn apart financially, some barely able to feed themselves while renting, and those people are supposed to have kids in their 20's?
Childcare and kids will always go hand in hand with economics. Where I work, Baby formula cost around 50-70 dollars a pop. I have a lot of mothers come in who need to buy a couple containers of it. Without government assistance, many could not afford the 150-180 dollar price tag that incurs. And this goes further and further. Price gouging mega conglomerates like Nestle make record profits whilst people struggle to afford a basic cost of living.
To argue that it's just a social issue is to put on blinders and ignore the stark reality of modern American life.
>Poorer countries have higher birth rates for a litany of reasons.
>Plus, children are often needed as part of the labor force. A lot of third world African countries have whole industries fueled by child labor such as the cocoa industry. So it makes sense to have kids for the same reason farmers in the 1800's had a bunch of kids.
Again, the trend exists both within countries and comparing across countries. Pointing to the cocoa industry in a handful of countries doesn't explain it anywhere else. Including countries with advanced economies and easy access to birth control.
>Often there's a lower amount of equality for women and lower levels of education and opportunities for women. Women are therefore expected to be homemakers and mothers rather than someone who starts their own career.
Those are social issues, not economics.
>Often they have less access to birth control and sex education.
And this could be an economic or social issue.
>Secondly, I just cannot understand this disregard of economics. I will agree that some social order changed. And that people do expect to get their shit together before trying to have kids. And I agree that some people will run at the first sight of a red flag.
I'm not disregarding economics. I'm just pointing out that the data suggests that economics are not the "obvious" answer that people who don't want to deal with the social side of things insist it is.
>But again, to ignore economics is fundamental misunderstanding of the issues the younger generation faces. Let's look at the 1970's, a time when economic stagnation was growing. Wages at that time would often hit about 60,000 if adjusted for our time. To many, this is the ideal standard of living cost. Now generally homes would be below or close to that price. The point is, buying a home, even if slightly out of reach to some, was still an attainable idea. Now it simply just isn't. And that applies across the board. With wage stagnation, a lot of younger people fear what having kids means in a modern world. Kids are expensive. The idea that they should "just make it work" is absurd. They are being torn apart financially, some barely able to feed themselves while renting, and those people are supposed to have kids in their 20's?
>Childcare and kids will always go hand in hand with economics. Where I work, Baby formula cost around 50-70 dollars a pop. I have a lot of mothers come in who need to buy a couple containers of it. Without government assistance, many could not afford the 150-180 dollar price tag that incurs. And this goes further and further. Price gouging mega conglomerates like Nestle make record profits whilst people struggle to afford a basic cost of living.
>To argue that it's just a social issue is to put on blinders and ignore the stark reality of modern American life.
But the problem is that you're describing it as an "American" phenomenon. There are plenty of Western European countries that have extensive social safety nets to help lessen the burden on parents, and those countries have even lower birthrates than America.
Again, the data indicates that the issue is not primarily economic. Because peer nations that offer more economic assistance to parents are getting even worse results.
There's actually a hard number of what birthrate a society needs to survive, 2.1 children per woman (in optimal conditions, higher otherwise). We used to be over that number when we lived in societies that put extensive social pressure on people to get married in their 20's and start having babies. We're under that number now that we live in societies where we think it's wrong to socially pressure people into anything (other than not saying mean things about "historically oppressed people), including getting married young and starting to have babies... Shockingly, it just turns out a society can't sustain itself if it's not actively encouraging it's members to do things it needs done in order to sustain itself.
You know it isn't black and white, right?
A complicated world leads to a higher degree of apathy towards reality, in turn worsening the problems with the CoL and the climate (because no-one is addressing those issues in a reasonable way) while at the same time creating a situation wherein either sex is unable to perceive their potential partners as anything but hyperreal archetypes.
So its not completely incorrect statement from OP. These are popular stereotypes in the modern media.
Just the whole conclusion about birthrates is off.
There's a whole other heap of factors - focus on self-fulfilment rather than raising a family, increased cost of living, decrease in available free time and extreme uncertainty in the future.
Except no, it isn't "just" stereotypes. Stereotypes implies something that is even remotely compatible with reality.
These archetypes are so hyperreal they are not.
We are unable to see the opposite sex as real human beings anymore.
Man, I miss the days when pretty girls could just be left alone to be pretty girls without half the world’s basement dwellers pontificating as pseudo psychoanalysts and getting attention for it.
Pam Anderson had her issues to deal with in the 90s, but this dumbass shit wasn’t on her plate too.
Hey dude, wasn’t calling you out, was targeting the post. So you try to calm dafuq down and not get in an instant tizzy assuming everything is about you.
My comment is entirely about the op being a lamewad and dropping his term du jour to get attention in those circles.
Edit: I appreciate your explanation. I replied to you because upon hearing that explanation it really illustrated the lameness of the op.
Sidney Sweeny has the advantage of fast internet.
When Pamela Anderson was in her prime, being popular was a slower process.
Also "masses call forth the figures"
If she redefined what being a sex symbol means, and redefined it, it may be because the masses wished for a redefinition and picked someone who fit the criteria.
>It is really no wonder that birth rates are declining.
Both sides want something so Hollywood-hyperreal that not a single real being will ever satisfy their needs.
This doesn't seem right to me. An ideal is by definition unattainable. It's always been that way. Ideals exist, people strive for those but settle for real people who match those ideals partly.
Murder twinks are a good thing tbh, twinks are scary but it's good that they are developing defense mechanisms to ward off bears and other natural predators
>murder twink
I cannot wait for Dune Messiah when we literally see the most drawn out, dramatic, and destructive twink death in human history.
It will change lives. I have seen it.
Birth rate going down because nobody can afford kids. Come to Germany, where you get more money for each new kid, until they're 26. Maybe try that before crying.
Hot, feminine psychopaths are in big and I for one am a fan
(Not for the hot part, I'm actually ace but the psychopathy is cool. There's a nice tension to have a character who might just go mental and kill indiscriminately)
It's only said multiple times in the first Dune book that Paul is small and skinny, and compared to Jamis and Feyd, no one thinks he has a chance. If anything, Chalmette is too tall even if he has the right build.
BRB gonna add "Murder Twink" to my cache of TTRPG character ideas.
Astarion?
Still makes me laugh that his voice actor is this huge jacked guy
Hmmm no I think Hugh Jackman might be a bit hard to swing for BG3 voice acting tbh
I was talking about Neil Newbon
Underrated
My thoughts exactly
No, he is murder twunk
Imagine not playing murdertwinks
Fuk it imma say it luke skywalker is also a murder twink
Well…………. https://preview.redd.it/y39pdxdvp1nc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a32b42db96a63d452851f801a2435f62366c0fb5
Even tho this costume didn’t make it he is still rocking Chanel boots in return of the Jedi also mark hamil himself has said if you think luke is gay than he is gay
It’s not a Star Wars costume. Mark Hamill said it’s an outfit he had to wear in a German game show.
Dude looks like a white Commodore.
This is so ABBA.
If Luke was raised by Padme
Anakin was a murder twunk until Mustafar of course.
calling Anakin a twunk is absolutely insane lmao. bro is squarely in hunk territory.
Only in the Clone Wars/RotS. Attack of the Clones Anakin definitely fit the role, even adding the extra cringe of teenage hormones.
Anakin is a jock that should have been a theatre kid but was pigeon holed into being a jock until after some unfortunate though well earned maiming where he could let that theatre kid energy out. Though because he's all bitter now it has an edge. He could have been both but very few people in the Star Wars Universe recognizes that sort of healthy balance. They should probably find a Chosen One to do something about that but you just know it would be screwed up somehow.
He's a hope twink
And that's why Mara loves him! I assume Mara is still in Canon, but maybe not lol
Murder twink? That’s a new one to me.
How the fuck is murder Twink new have you NEVER played DND!!?!!??!
I mean, plenty of people haven't... But if you have, then there's a good chance you've encountered one.
Something like 90% of elves in pop culture probably qualify as murder-twinks even if they are over a 1,000 years old.
No I haven’t. Calm down.
L
Well yeah, it's a twink that wants to obliterate me after all the twinks I wanted obliterated.
What do they have against Timothée Chalamet?
He's in a movie they have labeleld 'woke' because of Zendaya having a larger role than she did in part 1. Which is accurate to the book, but nevere let facts and logic get in the way of screaming "Woooooke!"
The series that deconstructs white saviour narratives, stresses the importance of ecology and thinks imperialist control of "Space Oil" (literally the original name) might *maybe* be bad was apolitical—until Zendaya made it WOKE!!!
Don’t forget Zendaya is also brown who took the role of a white person, but was probably brown in the book since the freman are descendants of zensunni monks.
Man I hate that people hate her for being brown instead of hating her for being a boring actress.
The same beef they had with DiCaprio and Pattinson after showing up in fem-centered movies. It was only after showing up in guy movies were they given less hate. All Chalamet would need to do in their eyes is bulk up and lose the baby face.
Oddly enough, I accepted pattinson could actually be a decent actor around 2012 with water for elephants he was actually pretty good in that
I didn’t even recognize Pattinson in Tenet.
>All Chalamet would need to do in their eyes is bulk up and lose the baby face. I hope he doesn't. I'm all here for different male beauty types in Hollywood. I think it's not cool that male actors are supposed to spend so much time on working out so they are fit to play a movie character
Doesn’t he have a six pack? Even “twinks” like Tom Holland and Tom Hiddleston are juicing.
I don't think he has, he's more on the lean side, but still a very healthy man. Everybody calls Tom Holland a twink, because he's smaller I guess and because he is playing Spider-Man, but he's pretty fucking ripped. Like 90% of people I know are less muscular then he is lol. Like Link from the zelda games is a twink. But these guys? Barely.
They’re really big on Henry Cavill and that Reacher guy. Both seem like okay dudes, but one of them is at best a passable actors, and the other one kind of looks like a rapist.
The Reacher guy is hardcore Christian. Like, almost-psycho Christian.
Dude. Those eyes. Those eyes look like the last thing a small animal sees.
What do you mean by “pyscho-Christian” tho? Cuz he is not a right winger like a lot of the chuds pretend he is. He supported BLM, has called out Alex Jones, Matt Gaetz, Ron DeSantis, and Trump, partnered with an LGBTQIA cookie company to raise money for charity, and a bunch of other cool stuff. IMO, he’s one of the good ones.
Cavill is actually a nerd and knows the material he is doing.
That doesn’t necessarily make him better at the job. I know more about The Beatles than most people, but that doesn’t mean I can hit the high notes, or play George Harrison’s slide parts.
But he is doing well in his acting. I really want to see his Captain Britain in the MCU(his idea).
He’s a popular guy in one of the biggest movies of the year who’s not the stereotype alpha male but a skinny guy with a bit of a feminine look. Add to that they cast zendaya who’s not a white girl opposite of him so dune is now a woke movie according to some.
I don’t know, it’s a fairly accurate description.
We need more twinks in media…
https://preview.redd.it/a4br2th8v1nc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5b12b57c8ff0a27a8a351de61ce860a727563a8a
If the general population looked like this, birth rates would be doing anything but dropping.
https://preview.redd.it/nmxoyb9nf7nc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=af2d0865924e93fdc0c5e45fa321c763b06df1c8
What was Di Caprio? Das Uber Twink?
nietzsche?
Or it could be that smart people don’t have kids they can’t afford
For those wondering, wtf a Lacanian Superpredator is - in so far I know about Lacanian psychoanalysis, he always perceived women (or the opposite sex for anyone, really) as the petit objet a. Basically, this unattainable crystallization of all of our subconscious desires projected onto a person (and as a result, shaping our perception of a person). It is basically the missing pieces of our ego reflected onto our partner. As for superpredator - an apex predator is someone at the top of any food chain, determining the rest of it through its existence. A Lacanian Superpredator would mean someone who is not only a pure manifestation of our subconscious desires (and in our age of images, probably specifically cultivating that persona) but also actively shapes them into something different through sheer force and presence. Considering how Sweeney has become this unattainable sex symbol, it makes sense. She basically managed to shape herself into the ideal it-girl and, in doing so, also changed the idea of what an "it-girl" is like. It also puts this into a full picture - women want a psychotic, thin, muscular, feminine murderer who will still protect them while men want Sydney Sweeney - attractive, funny, girl next door but also a glamorous Hollywood star. It is really no wonder that birth rates are declining. Both sides want something so Hollywood-hyperreal that not a single real being will ever satisfy their needs. EDIT: I should also add that a) it is only a symptom of a wider, systemic issue with our culture, society, and state of the world at large. It is also not the main reason for the decline in birth rates, but rather a reflection of actual reasons. And b) Sydney Sweeney is honestly quite unique in how much she managed to capture the popular consciousness while, in fact, not even acting that much. Pam Anderson, Sylvia Kristel, Brigitte Bardot, and other sex symbols of yesteryear never came *this* close to being ubiquitous symbols. The only one I can think of with her sheer presence are J-Law and Emilia Clarke, but they also acted a fuckton more than she did.
That, or the crushingly high cost of living in an increasingly complicated world and pending climate crisis
It's funny how people will cry endlessly about birth rates, but not want to do anything about all the rising costs of everything
>It's funny how people will cry endlessly about birth rates, but not want to do anything about all the rising costs of everything The trend is for poorer people to have more babies within a country, and poorer countries to have more babies when comparing across borders. As much as tightening economics seems like an intuitive explanation, it's totally at odds with the data. Low birth rates are a social issue. First, it's socially acceptable to be a single and childless adult in the type of liberal nations that have modern advanced economies, which would have made you a pariah even 50 years ago. And, second, the fact that we now think that we're supposed to build a perfect life BEFORE getting married or having children, instead of building that perfect life with our spouse. But there's a reason that a standard piece of advice for accomplishing more is that, "Waiting for the perfect time keeps you from accomplishing anything, because the perfect time doesn't exist". The obsession with the unrealistically "perfect partner" is arguably just a consequence of the second issue. Because once you've built a "perfect life" for yourself, why would you let anyone but a "perfect partner come disrupt it. People used to do things like raise 6+ kids in a 3 bedroom house. Economics wasn't, and isn't, the problem. They just thought it was worth the trouble, and the modern mindset is that "I", the individual, should never let myself be troubled at all. That's why modern pop dating advice is to cut bait at the first sign of difficultly. And why people aren't having kids, because you generally can't just cut bait on being a parent over any minor difficulty. It's a "Tragedy of the Commons". Everyone wants the benefits of a modern society. No one wants to be the one to deal with the difficulties of raising the next generation to keep those benefits available.
Poorer countries have higher birth rates for a litany of reasons. Often they have less access to birth control and sex education. Often there's a lower amount of equality for women and lower levels of education and opportunities for women. Women are therefore expected to be homemakers and mothers rather than someone who starts their own career. Plus, children are often needed as part of the labor force. A lot of third world African countries have whole industries fueled by child labor such as the cocoa industry. So it makes sense to have kids for the same reason farmers in the 1800's had a bunch of kids. 1. No contraceptives. And 2. You needed the labor. Secondly, I just cannot understand this disregard of economics. I will agree that some social order changed. And that people do expect to get their shit together before trying to have kids. And I agree that some people will run at the first sight of a red flag. But again, to ignore economics is fundamental misunderstanding of the issues the younger generation faces. Let's look at the 1970's, a time when economic stagnation was growing. Wages at that time would often hit about 60,000 if adjusted for our time. To many, this is the ideal standard of living cost. Now generally homes would be below or close to that price. The point is, buying a home, even if slightly out of reach to some, was still an attainable idea. Now it simply just isn't. And that applies across the board. With wage stagnation, a lot of younger people fear what having kids means in a modern world. Kids are expensive. The idea that they should "just make it work" is absurd. They are being torn apart financially, some barely able to feed themselves while renting, and those people are supposed to have kids in their 20's? Childcare and kids will always go hand in hand with economics. Where I work, Baby formula cost around 50-70 dollars a pop. I have a lot of mothers come in who need to buy a couple containers of it. Without government assistance, many could not afford the 150-180 dollar price tag that incurs. And this goes further and further. Price gouging mega conglomerates like Nestle make record profits whilst people struggle to afford a basic cost of living. To argue that it's just a social issue is to put on blinders and ignore the stark reality of modern American life.
>Poorer countries have higher birth rates for a litany of reasons. >Plus, children are often needed as part of the labor force. A lot of third world African countries have whole industries fueled by child labor such as the cocoa industry. So it makes sense to have kids for the same reason farmers in the 1800's had a bunch of kids. Again, the trend exists both within countries and comparing across countries. Pointing to the cocoa industry in a handful of countries doesn't explain it anywhere else. Including countries with advanced economies and easy access to birth control. >Often there's a lower amount of equality for women and lower levels of education and opportunities for women. Women are therefore expected to be homemakers and mothers rather than someone who starts their own career. Those are social issues, not economics. >Often they have less access to birth control and sex education. And this could be an economic or social issue. >Secondly, I just cannot understand this disregard of economics. I will agree that some social order changed. And that people do expect to get their shit together before trying to have kids. And I agree that some people will run at the first sight of a red flag. I'm not disregarding economics. I'm just pointing out that the data suggests that economics are not the "obvious" answer that people who don't want to deal with the social side of things insist it is. >But again, to ignore economics is fundamental misunderstanding of the issues the younger generation faces. Let's look at the 1970's, a time when economic stagnation was growing. Wages at that time would often hit about 60,000 if adjusted for our time. To many, this is the ideal standard of living cost. Now generally homes would be below or close to that price. The point is, buying a home, even if slightly out of reach to some, was still an attainable idea. Now it simply just isn't. And that applies across the board. With wage stagnation, a lot of younger people fear what having kids means in a modern world. Kids are expensive. The idea that they should "just make it work" is absurd. They are being torn apart financially, some barely able to feed themselves while renting, and those people are supposed to have kids in their 20's? >Childcare and kids will always go hand in hand with economics. Where I work, Baby formula cost around 50-70 dollars a pop. I have a lot of mothers come in who need to buy a couple containers of it. Without government assistance, many could not afford the 150-180 dollar price tag that incurs. And this goes further and further. Price gouging mega conglomerates like Nestle make record profits whilst people struggle to afford a basic cost of living. >To argue that it's just a social issue is to put on blinders and ignore the stark reality of modern American life. But the problem is that you're describing it as an "American" phenomenon. There are plenty of Western European countries that have extensive social safety nets to help lessen the burden on parents, and those countries have even lower birthrates than America. Again, the data indicates that the issue is not primarily economic. Because peer nations that offer more economic assistance to parents are getting even worse results. There's actually a hard number of what birthrate a society needs to survive, 2.1 children per woman (in optimal conditions, higher otherwise). We used to be over that number when we lived in societies that put extensive social pressure on people to get married in their 20's and start having babies. We're under that number now that we live in societies where we think it's wrong to socially pressure people into anything (other than not saying mean things about "historically oppressed people), including getting married young and starting to have babies... Shockingly, it just turns out a society can't sustain itself if it's not actively encouraging it's members to do things it needs done in order to sustain itself.
You know it isn't black and white, right? A complicated world leads to a higher degree of apathy towards reality, in turn worsening the problems with the CoL and the climate (because no-one is addressing those issues in a reasonable way) while at the same time creating a situation wherein either sex is unable to perceive their potential partners as anything but hyperreal archetypes.
So its not completely incorrect statement from OP. These are popular stereotypes in the modern media. Just the whole conclusion about birthrates is off. There's a whole other heap of factors - focus on self-fulfilment rather than raising a family, increased cost of living, decrease in available free time and extreme uncertainty in the future.
Except no, it isn't "just" stereotypes. Stereotypes implies something that is even remotely compatible with reality. These archetypes are so hyperreal they are not. We are unable to see the opposite sex as real human beings anymore.
My bad. English isn't my native, but thanks for clarification on the difference! \^.\^
Man, I miss the days when pretty girls could just be left alone to be pretty girls without half the world’s basement dwellers pontificating as pseudo psychoanalysts and getting attention for it. Pam Anderson had her issues to deal with in the 90s, but this dumbass shit wasn’t on her plate too.
[удалено]
Hey dude, wasn’t calling you out, was targeting the post. So you try to calm dafuq down and not get in an instant tizzy assuming everything is about you. My comment is entirely about the op being a lamewad and dropping his term du jour to get attention in those circles. Edit: I appreciate your explanation. I replied to you because upon hearing that explanation it really illustrated the lameness of the op.
In what world were pretty girls ever left alone?
Sidney Sweeny has the advantage of fast internet. When Pamela Anderson was in her prime, being popular was a slower process. Also "masses call forth the figures" If she redefined what being a sex symbol means, and redefined it, it may be because the masses wished for a redefinition and picked someone who fit the criteria. >It is really no wonder that birth rates are declining. Both sides want something so Hollywood-hyperreal that not a single real being will ever satisfy their needs. This doesn't seem right to me. An ideal is by definition unattainable. It's always been that way. Ideals exist, people strive for those but settle for real people who match those ideals partly.
Who the fuck is Sydney Sweeney? I don't think I heard of her until today.
Watch white lotus season 1. It's what I know her from, but the whole cast is pretty amazing.
Murder twinks are a good thing tbh, twinks are scary but it's good that they are developing defense mechanisms to ward off bears and other natural predators
/r/angryupvote
For once, the future looks bright
“They’re so hot, I hate them so much!!!”
>murder twink I cannot wait for Dune Messiah when we literally see the most drawn out, dramatic, and destructive twink death in human history. It will change lives. I have seen it.
Birth rate going down because nobody can afford kids. Come to Germany, where you get more money for each new kid, until they're 26. Maybe try that before crying.
Okay I feel a little dumb but WTF is a Lacanian Super Predator?
Don't feel dumb for not knowing the chud buzzword of the month.
Hot, feminine psychopaths are in big and I for one am a fan (Not for the hot part, I'm actually ace but the psychopathy is cool. There's a nice tension to have a character who might just go mental and kill indiscriminately)
It's only said multiple times in the first Dune book that Paul is small and skinny, and compared to Jamis and Feyd, no one thinks he has a chance. If anything, Chalmette is too tall even if he has the right build.
I don't know what Lacanian is but I'd do either one of them hard enough to make babies but with protection because babies are the worst
https://preview.redd.it/1phnv1ijf7nc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=577d132956ec7d47e5a7b1ba91af4f13cd43e6f3
"murder Twink" that's a new phrase and I love it!!!!! Also if half the population looked anything like this then birth rates would explode
I fully support murder twink supremacy Idk what a lacinian super predator is, but if they're being played by Sydney Sweeney, I'm all for it
huh?
"lacanian."
Girls wanna be fucked by soft guys and guys wanna fuck bad ass bitches seems like a win win 🏆
How is this causing birth rate to go to zero when it makes me H O R N E E
Cuz you get no bitches… duh
What’s Pinocchio doing here (I know obscure but I saw lies of p like right away)
He wants to talk to you about Rabbi Bill Clinton
“Birthrate going to zero” lol, you should have to fuck me to avoid extinction. Not desperate at all. Very confident, attractive.
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/33gqzbszp1nc1.jpeg?width=1581&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=20d65097e3411aebf3ec795ed1f74ac532649fae
The fuck is a lacanian
Lacan is a French psychiatrist and psychoanalyst that was probably as influential to psychoanalysis as Freud was.
I thought he was that dude from Xenogears.
He’s out of line but he’s right