Whoa! Step back there, bud!

Holy shit!

When did I say anything about denying people their rights?

That escalated quickly.

You seemed to be implying that...if I'm wrong then I apologize

Apology accepted. Jeezus.

And no, I wasn't implying that.

just relax, you made a claim that seemed pretty radical, and we're trying to understand your thinking

Ok, can I post a video down in <#807374086295912488> that shows you guys the types of biological differences in thought patterns that men & women display, narrated by a clinical behavioral psychologist?

we have no doubts that there are biologial differences, but the way you worded it seemed pretty extreme, at least by my standards.

How so?

It sounded like you were saying the Nuclear Family is the *only* possible successful structure

This statement sounded like you were saying that a woman shouldn't be in a leadership position because they'd run the country like a household. In the future I recommend being more precise.

which I agree with to an extent, but I think you worded it as if women are less than

hey i was tempted for the nuclear family for decades...just didn't get any bites on the idea ..they were more interested in just having fun

No, it's not that they can't be, but there is something to be said for the collective experience of history. Like, the way men want things to be run is from a purely meritocratic point of view, so when you get to how wealth should be distributed, then there is an extreme poverty line, like what you saw with kings for example. But we learned that that didn't work.

sorry man, I'm sure your lady will come along

We learned eventually that, as much as we *wish* things to be run from a 100% meritocratic point of view, it actually makes a whole lot of suffering. People would become indentured servants with no way of upward mobility, which would lead to resentment and revolutions.

And that took, quite literally *thousands* of years for men to learn. And men are the ones responsible for this, because it's not as if women were running anything before 1950.

I mean, sure, you had the occasional queen. But for the most part it was men making mistakes and men *very slowly* learning from those mistakes with a lot of dialogue on what we were doing wrong.

@Porcupioneer sorry didn't think that one through.

Now that we're letting women run things, I can just as easily see the exact same mistakes being made from the other direction. Instead of 100% meritocracy, it looks like we're headed towards 100% equity.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

<:weirdpepe:803800661933555714>

who tf pinged me

3 pings, too

Lol

https://tenor.com/view/ping-who-pinged-me-disturbed-gif-14162073

He needs to do it

<:KEK:795742276549607456> <:KEK:795742276549607456> <:KEK:795742276549607456>

<:DewIt:801849039258648606>

You’re fine

I wouldn't say meritocracy is impossible. I think free market capitalism does a decent job at achieving it, but of course it isn't perfect (nothing is).

Well, yes. I think so too.

And free market capitalism isn't feudalistic

Socialism has more in common with feudalism than capitalism does tbh

No, I wouldn't say that. Monarchy is what I call the extreme authoritarian Right.
Right is Meritocratic, Left is Equality. National Socialism landed on the extreme authoritarian centrism.

So you'd have a revolution from the previous line of kings, and whoever led the revolution most effectively became the new king. And that line of kings would continue for an average of about 3 generations before the new line of kings would become so corrupt that another revolution was needed.

But there were markets in Monarchies, it's just that the Kings owned so much of everything to such an insane extent that it was, in effect, government. I mean, think about the way fiefdoms worked. The King owned the land you lived on. Taxes and rent were effectively one and the same.