Ozark

@wodenstruth @JDHaltigan Dog, cattle, horse, pig… “breeds”?

@JDHaltigan How come subspecies exist in all animal kingdoms except human? Distinct, visually different, locally adapted subspecies that are capable of interbreeding? I’ve seen subspecies of birds that look more similar to each other than an Australian aborigine compared to a Celt.

This fallacy is incessantly repeated over & over & over again in the Social Sciences. The consequences for our politics & cultural hygiene have been catastrophic.

@EdmundAvalon @elerianm That I agree with you on. Uncertainty is death to biz investment.

@OzarkPath @elerianm It isn't the tariffs per se, it is the lack of confidence that any given rate will hold which creates uncertainty and endless wrangling every time they're changed on little more than a personal whim.

The Economist on the U.S. economy’s consistent growth outperformance relative to other advanced countries: “America’s outperformance began decades ago, but in the 2020s it has become vast. And it is likely to last. The latest IMF forecasts show American growth besting the rest all the way to 2030 and beyond…. Many of America’s advantages are hard to emulate. The country’s continental scale, single language, natural-resource wealth and the fiscal space that comes from issuing the world’s safe asset give it a unique economic advantage over Europe… But America also shows just how much other rich countries are failing to live up to their economic potential.” #economy @EconUS @TheEconomist

@nts33_eth @JoePompliano His father was 11y MLB vet who made $11 million for signing and fulfilling baseball CONTRACTS. Me does not think this word shady means what you think it means. Who else would you hit up besides hi potential minor leaguers who are willing to trade future potential $ for $ today!

@JoePompliano still kinda shady how they hit up minor leaguers

Fernando Tatis Jr. has lost his lawsuit against Big League Advance. Tatis was paid $2 million as a minor leaguer in exchange for 10% of his future earnings. This was not a loan. If Tatis didn't make it to the big leagues, he didn't have to repay the $2 million. But Tatis did make it to the big leagues and later signed a 14-year, $340 million contract. That meant Tatis owed Big League Advance $34 million. Tatis had publicly praised Big League Advance, saying the $2 million allowed him to hire a personal trainer, upgrade his apartment, and eat better food. But after realizing he owed $34 million in exchange for $2 million, Tatis sued the company, alleging that they used predatory tactics to lure him into an investment deal that was really an illegal loan. The judge disagreed. The agreement was upheld this week and Tatis was even ordered to pay Big League Advance’s legal fees. This is a big deal because Big League Advance has signed deals with 700+ athletes, including Elly De La Cruz (MLB) and Nolan Smith (NFL), across MLB, NFL, and college sports (think: NIL). And now that the courts have ordered Fernando Tatis Jr. to follow through on the agreement, other potential legal challenges will likely go the same way.

@grobconnolly @jasonrmcintyre @JoePompliano Yep, see 5 tool player Alberto Mondesi. No sure things. Injuries killed his career.

@jasonrmcintyre @JoePompliano Do you know how many players don’t make it……. The list is very long!

@stlcrdnlsfn08 @jasonrmcintyre @JoePompliano It’s like the students that get $100K degree and want loan forgiveness funded by a plumber’s taxes who never attended college!

Demand a king’s ransom? What? They literally handed him $2 million with absolutely ZERO risk to himself. If he didn’t make any money, it was just a free $2 million. Do you realize how completely insane the value of that is? They absolutely deserve that $34 million. He agreed to the terms and they did not change at all because that was the cost of removing the risk of having that money at his disposal. He knew the risks of lost earning potential on the back end. There was NOTHING predatory about this at all.

@LeeKurtiss @OwenGregorian I’m gender neutral regarding the asymmetry. If my daughter wanted was a surgeon w her husband to be planning to be a homemaker, I’d strongly encourage her to get a prenup that is fair to all. It should have language regarding the level of care for home & kids similar to finances

@OzarkPath @OwenGregorian So you don't want to be enlightened on how family law works? I'm shocked--SHOCKED I tell you!-- you are not willing to let go of your giant pity party lying about why the law is the way that it is

No Wonder Men Are Opting Out | Bettina Arndt, Zerohedge The warning signs have been there for decades. Back in 1983, American author Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a powerful book — The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment — arguing that a male revolt was underway. Since the 1950s, she suggested, men had begun rebelling against the breadwinner ethic, inspired by Playboy culture, the counterculture and a desire for personal freedom. They were rejecting the cultural ideology that had shamed them into tying the knot and becoming a good provider, lest they be seen as immature, irresponsible and less than a real man. Ehrenreich understood that marriage was the mechanism by which society harnessed male productivity. Remove the shame and the yoke comes off. Forty years on, the yoke has disappeared. In April 2026, the American male labour force participation rate hit its lowest level since records began in the 1940s, according to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics. One in three American men — roughly 33% — were not working or actively looking for work. The overall male participation rate for men aged 16 and over stood at just 67%, down from 73.5% two decades ago and from 87% in the postwar years when Ehrenreich’s story begins. The trend is not confined to America. Similar declines — though less dramatic than in the United States — have occurred in the UK, Australia and Canada. The marriage collapse runs in lockstep with the workforce data. According to US Census Bureau data, married-couple households made up 71% of all US households in 1970; today it’s just 47%. As University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox documents in his 2024 book Get Married, the marriage rate has fallen 65% in the last half century. Ehrenreich had made the argument that marriage and productivity were inseparable — that the same mechanism which got men to the altar got them to work. The data suggest she was right. What Ehrenreich did not fully reckon with — and could not have foreseen in 1983 — was that the inducements for tying the knot would collapse. The shame mechanism has disappeared, yes. But the incentive has simultaneously imploded. The product on offer has changed beyond recognition. If you want to understand why men are voting with their feet, you need to look not just at what marriage now costs them — and the costs are severe — but at what it delivers. Increasingly, what it delivers is a pretty dud deal. The modern woman: a prospectus: - They are the most miserable, anxious and insecure cohort in living memory — hardly great marriage material. - Most married women go off sex — and the husband who objects is seen as the problem. - Many women don’t actually like men very much. The more educated she is, the higher the contempt. - They’ve gone full throttle Left — and three quarters of college-educated women won’t even date a man who votes differently. - They’ve rigged the education system and colonised corporate and institutional life, turning universities and workplaces into man-repellent factories. - Yet their hypergamy is still running hot. Despite outnumbering men in education and careers, they still demand a tall, equally high-status unicorn. - The modern female threat-detection system is hyperactive. Almost any male behaviour — silence, opinions, jokes, breathing — gets flagged as a red flag. - They’re extremely well-versed in the lucrative economics of divorce, including a well-timed false allegation to eliminate tedious shared parenting. What rational man reads this list and thinks: yes, that’s exactly what’s been missing from my life? To examine more carefully what is going on here, let’s start by looking at the latest addition to this sorry reckoning. I’m referring to the finding published in the New Statesman last month that many young women don’t like men. A Merlin Strategy poll of young Britons aged 18 to 30 found three times more young women than young men held a negative view of the opposite sex. Only about 50% of women had a positive view of men compared to 72% of men feeling positive about women. For women under 25, it was even starker: only around one-third (35%) reported a positive view of men. This applies particularly to professional and managerial young women of whom just 36% hold a positive view of men, compared with 61% of working-class women. The contempt for men is hardly surprising – that’s what they have been taught. Mary Harrington, a British journalist and cultural critic who writes on Substack, frequently criticises what she calls the “femosphere” — the online feminist spaces where women bond through shared grievances about men. “The online feminist scene often feels like one long group therapy session for women to compare notes on how awful men are,” she writes, suggesting this makes men the universal scapegoat, where ordinary male behaviour is routinely framed as toxic or oppressive, while women’s collective resentment is rewarded and amplified. “Casual, low-level male-bashing has become the background hum of progressive online culture.” Not only does this toxic climate encourage women to be wary of men, but growing up in a hate-fuelled online sewer takes a toll on their mental health. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has long been warning that the toxic world of social media would lead to a rise in mental health problems, particularly in girls and young women. “Since the early 2010s, young people across the developed world are becoming more anxious, depressed and lonely. The increases were even greater in young women,” he said. Recent large-scale surveys (Ipsos 202-–2026 across 31 countries, Gallup 2025) are showing Gen Z women currently report the highest recorded levels of anxiety, persistent sadness, hopelessness and depression of any female generation at the same age. Not much fun for their partners. Last year Psychology Today had a stark warning for men about these women as marriage prospects. The saying ‘happy wife, happy life’ may have some validity, but the lesser-known saying ‘anxious wife, miserable life’ has research-approved validation. … The more neurotic the spouse is, the less happy the relationship — but women’s neuroticism seems to carry more weight in the overall marital happiness equation. Then there’s the intriguing issue of married women turning off the tap, leaving sex-starved husbands as the norm. For as long as anyone can remember, men were shamed into showing up economically. Society has absolutely nothing to say to women who stop showing up sexually. One obligation was enforced by church, law and community for centuries. The other is now abrogated on the grounds of bodily autonomy. So here we have the portrait of the modern woman as marriage prospect: miserable, anxious, politically radicalised, contemptuous of men, often sexually rejecting and trained to see menace in ordinary male behaviour. And yet the puzzled chorus from commentators, economists and policymakers continues: why won’t men commit? Why won’t they work? The approved explanations are dutifully trotted out. The economic story: men have been displaced by automation and globalisation. The health story: opioids, disability, mental illness. The educational story: men are falling behind women in universities and therefore in the job market. The cultural story, favoured by progressive commentators: toxic masculinity is preventing men from adapting to a modern service economy. All of these contain a grain of truth. But they do not account for what is really going on. The obvious explanation — the one staring out of every data table — is intentionally ignored. Marriage was the primary incentive for sustained male economic effort. It has always been — Ehrenreich knew it in 1983, and the economists have now confirmed it. There’s an economic research paper, ‘The Declining Labour Market Prospects of Less-Educated Men, which establishes that the prospect of forming and providing for a family constitutes a critical male labour supply incentive, and that the decline of stable marriage directly removes it. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas calculated that declining marriage rates are responsible for roughly half the drop in the hours men work. Remove the marriage and you remove the responsibility. The data have been telling us this for decades. But here is what nobody in the mainstream conversation will say: it is not only that marriage has become too costly and too legally treacherous for men — though it has. It’s that many young women themselves have become, to put it plainly, not worth having. Half of young British women don’t trust men. More than half of educated young women view men negatively. They arrive at relationships pre-loaded with grievance, primed by algorithms that have fed them a diet of male failure and female outrage since adolescence. They are, by their own account, anxious, miserable and politically furious. What rational man, surveying this landscape, concludes that what his life is missing is a legally booby-trapped commitment to a woman primed to be impossible to keep happy? Ehrenreich feared in 1983 that if the shame mechanism collapsed, male productivity would follow. She was right. What she could not have anticipated was the other half of the equation — that the feminist revolution would produce not a generation of fulfilled, generous, companionable women, but one that is, by every available measure, angrier and unhappier than any before it. The yoke is off. The men have looked at what’s on offer. And many have, with considerable rationality, decided to go and play video games instead. dailysceptic.org/2026/05/19/no-…

@LeeKurtiss @OwenGregorian Men who want to work outside the home to support a homemaker should consider a prenup because their financial support is often compelled by courts during divorce, whereas the homemakers role cannot be compelled. That by definition is asymmetric.

@LeeKurtiss @OwenGregorian I said divorce courts favor women in custody cases (which is true 70-80%). I never claimed it was because they are women. I never attributed a reason to the favoring. I correctly claimed they favor women. You were triggered by what you incorrectly assumed that I meant.

@LeeKurtiss @OwenGregorian You don’t know me yet you called me lazy, not being w my kids enough, & assumed I was divorced. Your responses are mostly personal attacks. Why not disagree civilly sans cursing strangers? It does opposite of enlightening or persuading others of the rightness of your positions.

@OzarkPath @OwenGregorian What kind of facts would you like since you seem so triggered by pointing out your faults?

@LeeKurtiss @OwenGregorian Ad hominem venom is all you seem capable of sharing.

@OzarkPath @OwenGregorian So you just admitted you don't know what the fuck goes on in a divorce court. But you feel ABSOLUTELY entitled to mansplain to those of us who are experts in how family law works. You are ridiculous

@LeeKurtiss @OwenGregorian Did I claim all marriages should stay together. No. I shared that most suffer from divorce l, not just the women you mentioned suffering financially. Do your tiresome ad hominem attacks usually work for you with others?

@OzarkPath @OwenGregorian And they suffer far more when people who love each other are forced to continue living together. Children are far far FAR more mentally healthy in two Happy homes than they are in one miserable home. But you keep doubling down babbling things you have ZERO knowledge of

@frisbee__kid @TheAliceSmith Which US elites reserved elite spots for Elon (S Africa) or Sergy Brin (Moscow), or Warren Buffet (Omaha). Why? If you’re gonna make bat shit crazy claims, help me understand.

@TheAliceSmith Do they understand they don't get to become the rich? Those spots were never for them... they are already reserved by an elite few. The elite few also don't understand how it will play out for them. They ignore the history that would explain it to them.

Leftism was always a pseudo radical movement. They don’t want to smash the system and eat the rich. They want to control the system and become the rich.

@BrentoDumpCity @TheAliceSmith Perfect leftist logic… “smarter” wanting “power”. Better to earn power through competence, innovation, perseverance, self control, leadership and hard work. Too right wing. I know.

@TheAliceSmith OH NO! I wanna control things and become rich! I am such a monster after all! Being more competent AND willing to pay higher taxes is such a THREAT to society! What will we do! Smarter people wanting to be in positions of power to avoid bankrupting the nation is such a concern!

@psychewanax @goforthdancing @newstart_2024 @AuronMacintyre Moronic asshole

@goforthdancing @newstart_2024 @AuronMacintyre lol shut up and post tits, foid, you can contribute nothing more important to this convo than your nipples

Helen Andrews made a point that feels increasingly hard to ignore. The shift from blue-collar to pink-collar jobs hasn’t just changed the economy; it’s quietly fueling a marriage crisis. Studies on areas hit hard by the China shock showed the sharpest drops in marriage rates happened where men lost stable work. When men aren’t economically flourishing, family formation stalls. You can’t simply swap who brings home the paycheck and expect the same results. She argues we need more real manufacturing jobs — not just for economic security against China, but because strong male employment is a key driver of the next generation. This one made me pause. We’ve celebrated the “feminization” of the workforce as progress for decades, but if it’s contributing to fewer marriages and fewer kids, maybe we’re missing something important. Economies aren’t just about GDP. They’re about people building lives, families, and futures. When the job market stops supporting that for half the population, the downstream effects are massive. Do you think bringing back more stable manufacturing jobs could help fix the marriage and birth rate decline, or is that too simplistic?

@LionKimbro @newstart_2024 The autopsy of past policy successes & failures is still useful on making better future societal decisions. No?

“She argues we need more real manufacturing jobs — not just for economic security against China, but because strong male employment is a key driver of the next generation.” Okay, but… …that ship has sailed. It would take 5-10 years to build up manufacturing again, optimistically speaking, and in that time, AI and robots are going to eat up the entire space anyways. It feels like we are attempting to solve problems made fifty years ago, but in the brave new world of today.

@LeeKurtiss @OwenGregorian Usually the children, wife, husband, family & community all suffer emotionally & monetarily from divorce. Very few ever “win” a divorce. Most are losers.

@OzarkPath @OwenGregorian That's just a bald-faced lie. Women are poorer after a divorce, and children are awarded to the PARENT who spent most of the time with a child DURING the marriage. It's not women's fault you are a terrible father who's too lazy to spend time with your own children

@LeeKurtiss @OwenGregorian Divorce courts favor women financially & custody wise. Men as primary bread winners are compelled by courts to keep providing. Courts cannot force a wife to keep cleaning, cooking or having sex. Women have asymmetric legal power in marriage.

@OwenGregorian Name the "severe costs" for men getting married, and why do you believe they are worse than the cost for women to get married? Based on ACTUAL data of women who get married and men who get married (not Fantastical propaganda from ragebait)

@VittoJC @OwenGregorian Only 40% of human males historically passed on their genes while 80% of women have.

@OwenGregorian Fortunately males that opt out of work shouldn't reproduce anyway. We have enough beta-males as it is.