Have you thought of having billionaire parents?

Fun fact: early microwave ovens were designed to defrost hamsters

You clearly seem to think that personality is at best a minor part of how women choose a partner. For the majority of women, personality is a huge part in them choosing who they want to let into their life, with physical attractiveness coming after that. For the rest of women, I’d be wary about dating them in the first place.

If you want to find a partner, I recommend you stop trying to find one. Wash up, clean the dishes, go outside, and find people to hang out with. Find a club, do some sport, play some music, or join a church (don’t care if you’re not religious, they’re good places to meet people). If you’re clean, confident, and can hold a conversation for more than a minute, I guarantee most people won’t notice race.

Also, I get that you’re most likely a rage bait account. I don’t care. I know there are people who genuinely feel like this, so if you don’t care, I hope they will.

trust me, your free time will be gone

I disagree, because I’d count that as free time.

Scripted dialog is usually idealized, not realistic. Whenever a script includes someone getting tongue tied, it’s always to say something about them. There are characters that do often mess up words in a script, like the nervous young person with a massive crush or the constantly distracted old genius

Way to assume there mate. A. rabbits and magpies are invasive species that hurt both farming and the nz native ecosystem, and B. rabbits are pretty tasty in a good curry or stew.

I don’t know where you live, I assume aussie, but here in nz magpies aren’t protected. And while I don’t think they are officially classed as pests, they definitely can be.

Really the only times I’ve been in a situation where I both didn’t have a gun and would like one is when I’m out on the farm and I see a rabbit. Or a magpie.

Edit: to clarify, this is in nz. Both rabbits and magpies are invasive.

I agree that it’s a genocide, but why is it not a war? There’s definitely plenty of fighting

Can you tell me precisely what Ukraine did to provoke Russia into invading, other than just historically being part of the Russian empire?

Like Withers from BG3?

nazi invasion in 1941

Not commenting on '39-40?

everyone wanted them to collapse

This changes what exactly? Even if everyone wanted it to collapse for purely imperialistic reasons, that doesn’t actually say anything about the government being good or bad.

Don’t expect funny from jankforlife. The best you can get is “America bad therefore soviets good”

advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers

I am advocating for using your vote to reduce human cost as much as possible. What that means depends on the context.

If you’re in America, the decision right now is between one genocide, two genocides, or refusing to have an impact on that decision with how impossible the system is for third parties. One less genocide is the least bad option, unless you have a better one.

If you’re in New Zealand (where I live, so I’m more familiar with the politics here than anywhere else), there are multiple options because of MMP voting. That means I won’t be advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers.

citation needed

Labour coalitions have historically been the governments that have had the best impact on workers rights. At least far more than national coalitions.

Also, don’t think I’m saying you should vote for labour next year. Labour is shit, vote for someone better

“Very cheap” in terms of time, effort, money, and opportunity cost for each individual involved

OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read “electoralism” as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change.

But if the definition of “electoralism” is using voting in addition to direct action, I don’t think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It’s a good statement, but it needs more backing it up

Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that “voting convinces people that they’ve done all they need to” idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can’t fundamentally change things.

Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that’s something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I’d love to be proven wrong here.

Let the man cook

Nowhere in that does it really explain why voting is counter productive. Voting is a tool, and a very cheap one. It only costs at most an hour once every 3 years and requiring knowledge of current events and politics, which is stuff you will know about anyway if you’re involved in any kind of direct action.

The only potential argument there is the psychological one, where people are lead to think voting is enough to do their part, but I don’t think that’s a strong enough argument to pass up choosing your opposition. As shit as Labour is, National and Act are worse, and by any logic other than accellerationism (which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost), Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier.

I understand not running for office. That article gives good reasons that actually joining politics is a wasted effort. It takes a lot of time and money, and almost always ends up making people slide towards the “reasonable politician”, not the radical that they promised to be.

GET YOUR HAND OFF MY PENIS