Verbal-Jitsu

@JoeKlosepy @PiscoLitty lol not even close. He lost the first debate with Destiny, but throughly beat him in the subsequent 6 after.

@PiscoLitty The funny thing about Andrew Wilson is every single debate Destiny did with Andrew. Destiny kicked the shit out of him. Look at the Jan 6th debate as an example. Andrew always struggles when he is forced to defend an actual position and not a philosophical one.

HAHAHAHA ANDREW WILSON BLOCKED ME (coward fuck ran 🏃)

@PiscoLitty You ran man. Why didn’t you just debate him?

@DaveDignity @paleochristcon He should have accepted his debate man. Pisco ran.

@paleochristcon Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Ok Pisco. Since you will NEVER stop complaining if I don't debate with you I will debate you on this topic you requested. "Does destiny believe in moral facts" Tonight?

Republicans got Roe v Wade overturned, religious liberties strengthened, gun rights increases under the Supreme Court, got Trans people un title 9’d and ended child sex surgeries. Fuck all the way off.

@Carbon65X @paleochristcon Certain things are not at all

@paleochristcon Religion is man made, therefore the moral 'facts' contained within the texts come from man. Certain things are just innate. Humans would have never made it to 'civilization' at all if they had no concept of right and wrong.

If you want to debate if you think there are moral facts let me know lol.

@paleochristcon @Rach4Patriarchy I’m in the club

@ZerochCsgo @ImperiumFirst My party is owned by boomers, which does suck, those boomers are wildly pro Israel. But at least my party isn’t owned by rabid communist atheists who want to chop the dicks off of children and genocide our future. All you’ll tare down is your chance to ever fully gain power.

@VerbJitsu @ImperiumFirst You’re so low IQ it makes you destitute politically. We’re burning everything down. Your party is owned by jews.

Ben Shapiro finally gave Matt Walsh permission to reply to Nick Fuentes lol

@ZerochCsgo @ImperiumFirst You are single handedly making the argument against universal suffrage, by how dumb you are. You should not be allowed to vote, ever.

@ZerochCsgo @ImperiumFirst Retards falling for the most obvious left wing psyop that had ever existed.

@VerbJitsu @ImperiumFirst They actually are not a bigger enemy than Israel. They’re caused by Israel.

@ZerochCsgo @ImperiumFirst No they are not, that’s fucking retarded. Way to hand them the win though.

@ZerochCsgo @ImperiumFirst No it’s not. Nick is telling people to vote for communist postmodern atheists. They are a far bigger enemy than Isreal.

@ImperiumFirst Probably has to be the most strawmanned gay ass response Matt Walsh could’ve possibly even come up with

@zerofawkesgavin @ImperiumFirst How? What he said was based. You jewspergers are totally fine with letting the communists postmodern atheists win if it ends Isreal. You guys could not be more retarded.

@ImperiumFirst He was better off silent, now he's gone and made Nick right about him. Again.

@ImperiumFirst Matt with a based reply.

@WxRiskGrains @ggreenwald @DPBeachNY Just asking questions? Do you have the answer or not?

@VerbJitsu @ggreenwald @DPBeachNY you cannot be THIS stupid...

During Trump's second term: - Jared Kushner became a billionaire - the net worth of his 3 sons exponentially skyrocketed - Baron Trump now worth $120m Much if not most came from huge cash infusions from the Persian Gulf tyrannies. [Hunter Biden got $50k/month from Burisma]

@qwerty102985 @NVA23B19 @MaxNordau @realstewpeters @grok Oh man, you just keep getting more retarded. Thank god you live in a hellscape far away from us.

@VerbJitsu @NVA23B19 @MaxNordau @realstewpeters @grok Whoooo voting after I get brainwashed from the Jew on the TV while the billionaires and Israel and its jews and the deep state are the ones that are actually running the country, I really wish I could vote like the other goys

DAN BILZERIAN: “When I get to congress, I’m going to throw a grenade in the toilet: dismantle the FED, eliminate the IRS & ATF, and then prosecute elected officials with dual-loyalties for treason.” Well said. In fact, Randy Fine was actually caught on tape committing treason.

@ubiquitousnewt But it will completely destroy them when they are old and have collapsed to population.

Marriage is less appealing now because the material benefits it once offered women have largely collapsed. 100 years ago it was the dominant route to financial stability, social standing, protection and adult recognition. Today a woman can earn her own income, live independently and access most of the benefits that once required marriage. Her rising status came from economic and technological changes that aligned with female strengths, along with contraception, education and legal reforms. With those changes, marriage no longer looks like a significant upgrade. It looks like a risk with fewer guaranteed returns. It has always been an absurdity to frame marriage as a happiness project. Historically, marriage was a practical institution for pair bonding, lineage, inheritance and the stable raising of children who are enormously costly emotionally and materially, and take a long time to become independent. Cultures enforced marriage through pressure, shame and obligation because that was how you secured cooperation between the sexes. Divine will was simply a justification for adaptive behaviour. Happiness inside marriage was a bonus; it was not the structural purpose. Feelings of love themselves are ancient, but the expectation that marriage should be founded on those feelings is comparatively modern; the rule that love must be the basis for choosing a spouse. That expectation only gains real cultural traction in Western Europe from the 17th and 18th centuries onward. Once industrialisation began lifting populations out of constant survival pressure, humans could focus beyond subsistence and onto the broader palette of emotional human experience. By the 19th C the idea of a “love marriage” spread more widely, and only in the mid 20th c does it become the default assumption that marriage ought to be romantic. Assortative mating remained robust throughout; people fell in love largely within the boundaries set by class, status and compatibility. What changed was the cultural script, not the underlying biology. Marriage was never designed for happiness; it was designed for stability. Only once its material function weakened did people begin to expect it to deliver emotional fulfilment instead. And so here we are. Women’s romantic feelings are evoked when she sees a man with an appropriate level of status. But if most men in her circle are on par with her or below her, then there are far fewer men able to impress her. Why bother? She no longer needs rescuing from poverty. She doesn’t need a husband for survival. If anything, she would like a partner who propels her further up the socioeconomic ladder and an increasing proportion of men can’t do that. So what happens now? When the old social norms around marriage weaken, marriage stops being a universal expectation and becomes a personality filter. The people least capable of stability, cooperation or long term planning simply do not marry at all and tend to have children with multiple partners. Those with slightly better traits may marry, but may not sustain it for life as intended. In the end, marriage is not disappearing, it is becoming concentrated amongst the successful. It becomes almost like an aristocratic custom; rare, elite, stable, high-investment and deeply stratified. A marker of competence rather than a rite of passage. For everyone else the pattern is fluid relationships, low stability, weak pair-bonding and falling fertility. Marriage survives, but only among the successful. I can’t say I would mourn the loss of marriage. If modernity is a selection event, then it simply reveals who can form and maintain long-term bonds under conditions of freedom. When the economic compulsion is removed, what remains are underlying dispositions: stability, foresight, self-control, reciprocity, emotional regulation. Those traits cluster unevenly. Long live the genetically blessed. In the end, marriage will not be saved by sentiment. It will be saved by selection.

@ubiquitousnewt @M81Supremacist Why should you not?

@M81Supremacist Should I be aspiring to have 5 children to 3 different fathers and be divorced multiple times?

I wouldn't describe Rachel or Andrew Wilson as an authority on stable motherhood or relationships. She has 5 children to 3 different Fathers. One man abandoned her and his two kids over vague “personal issues.” The next Father was a criminal drug abuser who abandoned her and their one child fleeing legal trouble. Only Andrew Wilson gave her the trad family she now preaches. But he only committed to her after he was able to confirm the kids were his via DNA testing. What does that suggest about the dynamic? Rachel has shown self awareness and knows how her blended family looks, downplaying it as “youthful mistakes”. But mistakes these are not. This a well documented, multi year, behavioural pattern of maladaptive mate selection; serial monogamy with successively dysfunctional, low stability males, resulting in three different fathers for five children, two periods of single motherhood, and one tragic child fatality. And yet, she and Andrew think they are best placed to be critics of modern women and they are ab authority of what benevolent, stable family life should be like. Rachel and Andrew have built their entire brand shaming modern women for low partner standards, serial monogamy, single motherhood, and multiple baby daddies, the exact life she lived. Hypocrisy on full display. What kind of man is drawn to such a woman like Rachel Wilson to begin with? Well, Andrew is a bit of a bastard isn't he. Andrew Wilson’s core traits are abrasive high conflict dominance, arrogance paired with defensive aggression, and a rigid insistence on his unchallenged authority. You can see repeatedly by from his debate footage that he is irritable, rude, and bullying in style. Yes, he can be sharp and logical but he routinely shifts to personal attacks, insults, and verbal aggression when he perceives his authority or family is directly challenged. I don't think he can organically evoke genuine deference or voluntary submission from a desirable, respectable, agentic, and stable woman. Such a woman has independent, better mating options and would probably reject the unilateral “he is in charge of everything” authority because it clashes with her core traits. Rachel, shaped by a pattern of suboptimal mate selection and multiple children, has limited mating alternatives. So she explicitly conforms. She states on record that submission means “you submit to your husband in all things,” that Andrew holds charge of everything, and that she performs total domestic service because his dependability finally enabled the homemaking role her prior partners could not. He secures what he needs through a partner whose baggage makes compliance the rational exchange for security. They portray this trade off via a christian redemption narrative they co brand. Interesting.

@ubiquitousnewt @johntheboyc @AnonAnonymale No, how is it suboptimal?

@johntheboyc @AnonAnonymale Still suboptimal

@ubiquitousnewt @AnonAnonymale @all4chaos151 Does it show a lot about her personality or is it hypocrisy?

@AnonAnonymale @all4chaos151 My point was never she can't have an opinion. My point was that as she consistently had multiple dysfunctional relationships, it shows a lot about her personality

@ubiquitousnewt @all4chaos151 @AnonAnonymale It’s exactly the same concept.

@all4chaos151 @AnonAnonymale Not the same thing. A past drug addict telling you to quit drugs isn’t the same as what the Wilsons are doing. They are claiming authority on “superior” family systems while their own household is the living counter example to the rules they preach.