My ex would scream at me if I even hinted to anyone that I was unhappy because "I was trying to make them look bad". Emotional abuse and manipulation, power imbalances, etc, skews stats in any group.

Marriage is not all its cracked up to be. My divorce 1 year aniversary is this month, after being loyal and faithful for 12 years, I left due to abuse. I am now raising our child alone and I am so much happier now than I ever was while married.

Marriage is societal cancer.

There exists no society at all without marriage. The reason marriage is absolute central in all cultures and civilization is not because it's been forced onto people by bad men or because people think it's better, the reason is that cultures or people who don't practice marriage die out quickly.

To be clear, are you meaning strictly 1-to-1 "marriage", or are any of the many-to-one marriage types (poly, whatever) included?

Am curious, as the Saudi's seems to be "going ok" (for the males) with their harem approach. Not so much for the females I guess (no idea). That being said, their society seems to have lasted that way for a fair while now.

I know a lot of Saudi’s and also lived in the country. You are referring to a very small minority that practices polygamy. Most Saudi’s are in a monogamous marriage.

Marriage as a woman belongs to only one man and that man in turn has a duty to protect and support her and their children.

Which culture died quickly due to not practicing marriage?

All of them. They couldn't establish themselves enough to leave any important traces in history and are effectively erased. Sexual liberation is not a new idea, the reason why it's not traditional is because it is unsustainable and can never grow to a tradition

You do realize people can have sex, procreate and raise families without marriage, right? "Sexual liberation" doesn't negate sex, it only negates the proscription of involuntary sex and gender roles through patriarchy.

Also:

>All of them.

All of whom? Surely you can give us specific examples. Your certainty must based on solid archaeological and anthropological evidence, right?

We complain about ChatGPT making brazenly false statements with complete confidence, yet we have humans out here saying things like this.

This is a... hard anthropological claim to make. I don't claim to be an expert anthropologist, but I would note that marriage means very many things to different peoples. 'Western' marriage, as it were, is already fraught. One man and a women, sharing property? Well, what about two men, two women, or other genders? Non-cishetnormative understandings complicate this picture quite quickly. And what of property? The capitalist idea of property isn't the only one, and different understandings of property will, historically speaking, lead to different understandings of marriage.

All of this is to say that marriage is a fraught societal construct, not a societal neccessity.

This thread took a bit of a wild turn, but I felt I had to respond :)

You're using your lack of evidence as evidence not of absence but of presence?

I moved to a non tech company a few years ago. I run the phones and file server and program a few machines we sell. Its nice having a physical product to be proud of, and its enjoyable doing helpdesk for a very small company.

I used to work at web hosts and such.

I like the theory that musk is trying to win over the truck buyer segment's hearts and minds via twitter anti woke signals before releasing it to ensure there is an accepting market.

If you look at a map of the best selling vehicle by state and overlay who they voted for in the last few elections it's pretty clear who he needs to cozy up to and win over. I'm not thrilled about it, and it solidifies my choice not to buy a tesla, but it makes business sense to my uneducated eye.

Personally I like my nissan leaf and would like a nice simple plug in hybrid truck, not an electric brodozer.

That’s a pretty dumb theory. The cyber truck depends on a gigapress that just finally made it to the US to their plant in the last couple of months.

Second, it already had massive preorder demand from before the Twitter drama. There was no need to ensure demand.

Finally, the market for the cyber truck is going to be all of the people who were conscious about fuel efficiency and wanted a truck before but downgraded to a car/crossover. The cyber truck will not make a dent in any rural truck sales where towing and hauling is common.

As a counter anecdote, me and a few friends who preordered cybertrucks don’t care about fuel efficiency. We just love the bizarre looks and extreme performance/range. Personally I also bought into the hype around its toughness because I need to haul kids around in an area that is infamous for suicidal deer.

I’m even fairly ambivalent to the fact that it has a truck bed. Maybe I’ll carry lumber once a year. I’d rather have a 3rd row of seats.

Point one and two are good, I wasnt aware they had as many preorders almost as the last 3 years combined of f-150 sales, but sooner or later they are going to need to sell to people that don't actually care what kind of powerplant is under the hood to grow their market share and overtake ford nationally.

A Cybertruck pre-order costs $100, and it’s refundable. I’m not sure what the actual demand for those things will be when people have to put real money down.

This theory seems a lot more convoluted than "it's hard to scale production of a new vehicle and they haven't figured it out yet."

It'd be more fair to compare it to a similar quadro card than to a gamer card I'd think.

Anything that uses qt will suffer on nvidia.

There are pros and cons of each by radeon will get you a more intel like experience.

As a KDE Plasma user on a rolling release bistro, I am happy I switched to AMD!

And yes, I realize how much of a niche I inhabit.

man who use rolling release bistro, hungry for fast food

Who decides?

This will make for flights with only able bodied people eventually. Immediately though it would make the disabled into victims of riducule. Terrible idea. 0/10 on the empathy scale.

How so? 2 will have no effect on people who are actually disabled, and 1 and 3 just mean their seating position and carryon status are the same as they'd be if they weren't disabled.

I and many other 30 somethings I know decided to take our health more seriously after the pandemic, since obviously no one else is going to go to bat for us and we are now influential in the workforce enough to tell off the previous gen folks who would like us to just grit our teeth and make do.

It goes both ways in that until recently whites even said a black was less than a person _in the law_, so certainly they deserve to feel slighted by white people insisting racism is over and racial issues need to be considered from a made up position, and we need to do what we can to allow healing to make it right.

how long should this free pass last for?

slavery is still a talking point. Should black people get another century and a half after equality is achieved to hold it against white people? Do white people then get another century and a half to hold that against black people?

If the goal is equality, holding grudges and special treatment doesn't work.

Women got the vote, they didn't get 1.5 votes to make up for past injustices.

And I'm not suggesting we have perfect equality now. But if that's the goal, there's no room for revenge.

I would argue this "free pass" should last for until we no longer have living memory of racial discrimination. There are people still alive who couldn't vote because they are black. The Vice President of the united states had to be given armed guards in order to go to school because she was black and Indian. We're acting like black people are holding against white people something that no one currently alive can attest to. In actuality, racial discrimination and racist harm has occurred to people who are alive right now, and I highly doubt that white people get just proclaim "it's over, we solved racism" and therefore no one should retain any hurt feelings for the racist acts against them.

You know, I used to have a girlfriend that would do shitty things to me and then proclaim I was the one that needed to get over it because it happened so long ago, despite her never apologizing or making up for her behavior.

>You know, I used to have a girlfriend that would do shitty things to me and then proclaim I was the one that needed to get over it because it happened so long ago, despite her never apologizing or making up for her behavior.

You seem to be suggesting that you hold all women responsible for what your girlfriend did.

Do you see how other women might object to apologising for what your ex did, based purely of what they have in their underwear?

It was an example of an abuse not an example of an abusive class of people.

What a large group of people are doing now regarding racism is exactly what this one single woman is said to have done.

Am I part of this abusive class of people simply for being white?

How many of these 'single' women are there? How many before it becomes a class, and all women are culpable?

You seem to be suggesting that an entire race in the US should just get over it because it happened so long ago, which is the same gaslighting this woman is said to have done. Since you are doing this to an entire race, denying the importance of their experience and pain, you are in a class of their abusers regardless of your race.

So we'll keep the free pass until there is no living memory of any wrong doing against black people. Then we will only have living memory of the "free pass" and we will need to adjust back right? I mean, all we will "livingly" remember is the free pass after all, time to correct for that.

At some point people who are truly after equality need to look for justice in the future, not revenge for the past.

As for your ex-girlfriend, I have no clue how one individual being held responsible for "shitty things" compares to an entire race of people being held responsible for what their ancestors from many generations ago did. I will never apologize or feel guilty for what people who happened to have the same skin color as me did 100 years ago.

Mlk's kids are still alive dude. This is not ancient history.

> slavery is still a talking point. Should black people get another century and a half

The last people born into US slavery died in the 70s. The 1970s. This stuff isn't ancient history, and treating it as such is part of the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_last_survivors_of_Amer...

I'm not saying it ancient history. I'm saying there's no one alive today that experienced it.

If you want to change the 150 year cycle with a 50 year cycle go for it. The cycle still exists.

> I'm saying there's no one alive today that experienced it.

But that doesn't mean the effects aren't still experienced by their children and grand children, who are still living. In order to say it's ancient history, we have to actually grapple with that history. Another poster made a great point that the reason we don't closely associate Germany with Nazi Germany today is that they went thorough a lot of hard work to de-Nazify their country.

In America, we dismantled our apartheid state and called it a day. We went from slavery, straight into a segregated society, and then when the civil rights act was passed, racism was declared "over" by a segment of society who didn't want to fully deal with the issue. But the negative effects from 200+ years of stat-sanctioned oppression persist.

Imagine if Germany post WWII said "You know, the holocaust was too far, but Jews are still a problem, and they shouldn't be part of German society." We'd question how de-Nazified Germany actually was. Jews there would be correct to question whether the holocaust actually ended or if it just temporarily subsided. They would be right to be concerned when people started saying "It's OK to be Aryan", and they probably won't agree with that sentiment even if having blue eyes and blonde hair is literally just fine. Because we all know what people uttering such a phrase are really saying: "It's okay to be a Nazi".

Take the context back to America, and we haven't dealt with slavery or our history of racial segregation. Just as we start to deal with it in our modern area, we see at the local, state, and federal level, the same ideology that was for US apartheid is now very much against a societal level reconciliation at the scale Germany underwent. And those are the people like Scott Adams, who want us to retreat back to our segregated past. They are the same as the Nazis want to put the Jews back in the ghettos without going full holocaust, and call that social progress. It's the same thing with these American white supremacists.

>Imagine if Germany post WWII said "You know, the holocaust was too far, but Jews are still a problem, and they shouldn't be part of German society." We'd question how de-Nazified Germany

That isn't whats being discussed though. If Jews wanted preferential treatment because of the Holocaust I'd object to that too.

If you want to point to concrete things that prevent black people reaching equality then we can discuss it, I might even agree with you. I'm not claiming we have perfect equality today, just that that should be the goal.

But again you're just mentioning slavery as if that is itself an argument. It isn't it's a statement of what happened in the past. I can't change the past, and neither did I have any role in that past, so I'm neither morally culpable nor able to do anything about it. What I can do something about is today. And today I support equality.

> If Jews wanted preferential treatment because of the Holocaust I'd object to that too.

This is as strawman brought in from Scott Adams' rant. By and large black people are not asking for preferential treatment, and no one here is discussing that.

> If you want to point to concrete things that prevent black people reaching equality then we can discuss it

Absolutely. For example, my grandfather had a great head start at life. He came to America and immediately got a job. He owned land not long thereafter, which was left to my father. That land will be left to me. The entire time he lived in America he had the right to vote, and he shaped the country by electing representatives to lobby for his interests at the local, state, and federal level. Those representatives enacted laws that benefitted my family.

By contrast, a black man born into slavery would not be allowed to fully integrate into American society even when freed. He wouldn't have owned much of anything to leave to his children, and his grandchildren, my peers. His entire family tree wouldn't have been allowed to vote, or hold office, or own property.

If you want to claim that slavery has no impact today, you have to also believe it is so far in the past that the negative effects have been sufficiently attenuated. But really, we're actually talking about 1-2 generations. People have living memory of actual American slaves. You also have to believe political representation and generational wealth are meaningless. Seeing how hard people fight for political representation and to keep generational wealth, I think this is a deeply flawed position.

How do we fix this using the framework of equality?

> it's a statement of what happened in the past.

To go a step further, are you aware slavery isn't actually abolished in America? The 13th Amendment has a carveout that slavery may be a punishment for criminal activity. Now take a look at the drug war, who they targeted with that, who is currently incarcerated and doing unpaid labor, and tell me slavery is a thing of the past in America. Do you think it's a problem that black people are represented in America's prison population at 3x the rate they are represented in society at large? Don't you think the problem is further compounded by the fact that America has the largest prison population in the world?

>This is as strawman brought in from Scott Adams' rant

I haven't read his rant. If anyone was strawmaning, you went to Hitler, I was just trying to modify the example to better fit.

>He owned land not long thereafter, which was left to my father. That land will be left to me

Good for you. Doesn't apply to me though, so it's obviously not a black v white issue. Further I would support a ~100% inheritance tax rate, solves the issue, means that every generation has a clean slate, making their own way in life. Plus id rather pay my taxes after I'm dead. How does that suit?

> had the right to vote, and he shaped the country by electing representatives to lobby for his interests

And those laws can be changed. Which do you suggest?

>To go a step further...

Yes that's an issue. But is it an issue of poverty? A problem of racist police and courts? What? I disagree that slavery actually exists. I don't think prisons should exist as money making concerns though.

The thread of black -> poor -> drugs -> prison I'm not convinced needs to include black in there. And a healthy amount of personal responsibility for the people involved is also required. It can't all just be blamed on others.

And none of this requires a discussion of slavery. Fix the problem as it is now.

>The thread of black -> poor -> drugs -> prison I'm not convinced needs to include black in there.

Wow, incredibly magnanimous of you.

?

well assuming poverty is the issue. solve the poverty. for all people. i dont see why it makes sense to focus on a just so happens to be related group.

or is black poverty acceptable because it was forced on them by the white man? whereas all poor white people deserve it?

I'm just pointing out that it's incredibly magnanimous for you to ponder the thought that maybe black people don't have to be poor. Like I said, incredibly magnanimous.

Where did I say they have to be poor, or should be poor?

If you read the thread, I'm the one who isn't implicitly conflating the 2, which I suspect is at least part of the disconnect.

This is why I don't get arguments mentioning slavery etc. Because poverty and blackness are separate. You don't need a racial component to go about fixing that. So the snark is wrong.

>Where did I say they have to be poor, or should be poor?

I didn't say or suggest you said that.