Counter-Currents
Roy James Holden, a former cable guy who pleaded guilty to murdering one of his elderly white customers. His employer claims they had no idea Holden could be a criminal, despite lying on his application and being caught photographing his customers’ personal documents prior to the murder.
2,279 words
We’re Not in a Recession — We’re Just Transitioning to a Sheconomy
Merriam-Webster defines a recession as “a period of reduced economic activity.”
In December 2000, lame-duck President Bill Clinton said, “A recession is two quarters in a row of negative growth.”
On Thursday, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis revealed that the nation’s GDP fell 0.9% in the second quarter after falling 1.6% in the first quarter.
So two subsequent economic quarterly contractions, coupled with the highest inflation in 40 years, means we’re in a recession, right?
Wrong. That creeping feeling that the bottom is falling out of the American economy is all in your deluded mind, you crumb-eating peasant.
Sad sack economist Paul Krugman says we’re not in a recession, and even if we are, it doesn’t matter.
Last Sunday, before the numbers were revealed, terminally unattractive Treasury Secretary and former Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen insisted, “This is not an economy that’s in recession. But we’re in a period of transition in which growth is slowing.”
On Thursday, after the numbers were unveiled, Yellen doubled down:
When you look at the economy, job creation is continuing, household finances remain strong, consumers are spending and businesses are growing. . . . We’ve entered a new phase in our recovery focused on achieving steady, stable growth without sacrificing the gains of the last 18 months. . . . We know there are challenges ahead of us. Growth is slowing globally. Inflation remains unacceptably high, and it’s this administration’s top priority to bring it down.
Filthy black lesbian White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reassured the cackling hens of The View on Thursday that we aren’t in a recession, either:
That’s not what we’re seeing right now, right now we’re seeing gains. When you look at it more broadly, at the data, that’s why we’re seeing, what we’re seeing, is that we’re in a transition. We had this strong economic growth because of the work that the president has done in the past 18 months, and now what we’re seeing is a transition into stable and steady growth.
So apparently the economy is not in a recession, it’s in a “transition.” How long before we’re forced to call it a “sheconomy”?
So if it’s not a recession, can we say the economy is receding? It’s balding? It went swimming in the pool and has a case of shrinkage?
Also, you should be very, very wary of government stats about unemployment. There were about 260 million adults in America last year. In 2020, about 165 million American adults were employed. So by a strict and literal and untampered-with definition of unemployment, that would constitute 36.6% unemployment last year. But that’s not how the Bureau of Labor Statistics defines unemployment. If you’ve grown so despondent that you’ve given up on looking for a job, you are not listed as unemployed. If you make even part-time wages, you are not listed as unemployed. You are only considered unemployed if you are making no money at all and are actively seeking a job.
They lie about the unemployment rate, and now they’re lying that we’re not in a recession. They lie about everything. That’s what they do. How many lies can we take? Which lie will be the one that breaks the country’s back?
Off-Duty Black Cable Guy Murders White Woman, Jury Makes Cable Company Pay $7.3 Billion
This is a tragic case of a white woman who didn’t burn the coal but paid the toll anyway. But now the murderer’s employer is being forced to pay another toll: a $7.3-billion toll, to be exact.
On December 12, 2019, the day after visiting the house of an 83-year-old white woman in Irving, Texas named Betty Jo McClain Thomas to service her cable connection on behalf of Charter Communications, a black man named Roy James Holden returned the next day in his Charter van and stabbed Thomas to death as part of a botched robbery, leaving her to die on the floor in front of the television set he’d just made safe for cable TV.
Court records show that Holden had forged Thomas’ signature on a work order he completed before his business visit. They also show that Charter continued billing the murder victim for the service call for months after she’d died. They reveal that Holden had been disciplined by the company several times for behavioral infractions and had taken pictures of the driver’s licenses and credit cards of two elderly women, including Thomas. According to Thomas’ civil attorneys, Holden had lied about his past employment and Charter had failed to verify his claims.
Holden pleaded guilty to murder, telling investigators that he returned to Thomas’ house “because I was broke . . . I was hungry.”
In its defense, Charter released the following statement:
We are committed to the safety of all our customers and took the necessary steps, including a thorough pre-employment criminal background check — which showed no arrests, convictions or other criminal behavior. Nor did anything in Mr. Holden’s performance after he was hired suggest he was capable of the crime he committed, including more than 1,000 completed service calls with zero customer complaints about his behavior.
Last week, a Texas jury ordered Charter Communications to pay Thomas’ family $7 billion in punitive damages. Last month, Charter was found responsible for $337.5 million in compensatory damages.
Even though human life is said to be precious and that you can’t really put a price tag on it, being gouged for $7.3 billion dollars because an off-duty employee used your van to stab an old white lady to death seems excessive. It’s a horrible precedent that businesses can be held liable for what their employees do in their off-hours, provided they used business equipment to do it.
Your Urine is Killing the Planet Because You Eat Too Much Protein, and You Should Be Ashamed of Yourself
Apparently we’ve all been eating too much protein and should be ashamed about it. That’s right: Scientific American, which abandoned science long ago to hump the leg of woke orthodoxy, is trying to urine-shame you.
In the noble quest for justice and equity, you won’t have any muscles, and you’ll be happy!
A certain Sasha Warren writes the alliteratively titled “Eating Too Much Protein Makes Pee a Problem Pollutant in the U.S.”:
In the U.S., people eat more protein than they need to. . . . When we overconsume protein — whether it comes from lentils, supplements or steak — our body breaks the excess down into urea, a nitrogen-containing compound that exits the body via urine and ultimately ends up in sewage. . . . Under certain chemical conditions, and in the presence of particular microbes, urea can break down to form gases of oxidized nitrogen. These gases reach the atmosphere, where nitrous oxide (N2O) can contribute to warming via the greenhouse effect and nitrogen oxides (NOx) can cause acid rain.
You can buy Jim Goad’s The Redneck Manifesto here.
Jeepers, it would have been nice if they’d elaborated on that whole “eat more protein than they need to” and “overconsume protein” thing. Who determines how much protein is too much? And why don’t they even cite any numbers to establish that we’re eating too much protein? The whole thing stinks, I tell you — it stinks! It stinks worse than my nitrogen-addled piss.
When it comes to the task of removing nitrogen from wastewater, China is apparently way ahead of the United States. They recently spent about $20 billion getting rid of 90% of nitrogen from wastewater in three-quarters of their wastewater treatment plants, whereas the US only treats about 1% of its wastewater this way. So rather than spend $20 billion on truly keeping the water clean instead of tossing it at bankers as interest on worthless paper, scholars suggest that Americans simply eat less protein. You don’t have to stop eating hamburgers entirely . . . just a little less . . . and a little less . . . and a little less . . . until they tell you to stop eating them entirely.
Nitrogen, you see, is the biggest threat to the planet. It’s not all the carcinogenic chemicals and plastics that corporations are pumping into our bodies. It’s nitrogen, the most abundant element in the planet’s atmosphere.
“Trans-Identified Musician” Threatens to Murder Women Who Say He’s Not a Woman
You may remember a time not so long ago when a man wearing women’s clothes was considered a capital crime against nature.
That all changed when the Usual Suspects declared that “transphobia” was a greater crime even than misogyny.
One has to be intensely nutty to engender any sympathy from me for radical feminists, but by gum, the trannies have gone and done it. I’ve never seen a human subgroup whose entire identity is based on a delusion and who do the most unimaginably insane things if you insinuate that they are insane, apparently in an attempt to prove you were wrong for alleging they may not be entirely sane.
Consider the tranny v. TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) war, which is essentially a one-way war, because all I’ve seen the radical feminists say to trannies is, “You’re not a woman, and this isn’t your struggle.” I’ve never heard of a radical feminist threatening to kill a tranny.
Precious Child is some creep from Los Angeles who only decided that he’s a woman back in 2018. He is rumored to be the descendant of wealthy musicians, which may be why he has the dough to record professionally-produced music videos that hardly anyone watches.
He milked a bit of attention from last year’s Wi Spa Controversy, in which a MAGA/antifa face-off erupted after a woman reported seeing a man with a semi-erect penis in the women’s section of a Korean spa. Mr. Precious Child was not the person who interloped into the women’s section and flashed his penis, although he toyed with the idea that he was until the actual perpetrator was arrested.
Around the time of the penis-flasher’s arrest, Precious Child filmed a music video depicting him entering a spa room full of women wielding a six-foot prosthetic penis that resembles a devil’s tail and slapping them in the face with it.
The song for the video, “Tear Up,” is on his new album, AR-15s for Transgender Teens, along with a song called “T E R F Killer,” which amid seizure-inducing strobe effects and images of knives and bullets repeatedly flashes the phrase KILL A TERF TODAY. In the video description, Precious Child, who claims his music is “about transcendence,” writes:
This song and video is dedicated to every single filthy TERF [and MRA [men’s rights activist] in existence. Special shout out to JK Rowling! All billionaires are trash but you’re special.
In June, he had posted on Instagram that “JK Rowling would like fans to stop making plans for her death.”
Why hasn’t he been arrested for making terroristic threats? That’s exactly the type of question that only a transphobe would ask.
White Nationalist’s Daughter Writes a MAGA/Antifa-Themed Musical that’s Coming to Branson, Missouri
Although I’ve been unable to verify her claim, Scarlett Evans says she’s the daughter of Bill Johnson, founder of the American Freedom Party, which is now called the American Third Position Party and lists Kevin B. MacDonald as one of its eight party directors.
Evans has written a musical play she calls The Elephant in the Room. According to Evans:
This play is set to the 2019 political divide and treats the matter with humor to not only bring laughter through difficult times, but also to make the subject more approachable. Elephant in the Room has been praised as eye-opening and important by people on both sides of the political spectrum. My goal is to continue sparking this introspection and to make people smile.
I find it a bit weird to debut a play in 2023 that’s set in the year 2019, but I’ve never written a play, so who am I to judge?
Here’s a synopsis of the play as written on the official casting call website:
A contemporary musical-comedy about the political divide in the US. An Oregon college campus is in turmoil as opposite sides of the political spectrum initially clash over the removal of an [sic] historic statue. This action ignites those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum, while moderate students attempt to navigate a charged political environment and the ever-present information, misinformation, mixed messages and conspiracy theories emanating from the internet (which is, by the way, a character in this show).
I wish I had known about this play earlier, because I would have auditioned for the role of “Phil”:
Phil: Supporting, Male, 50-65
rugged, blue-collar appearance. Clearly a veteran of brawls, many and varied. Proudly wears a tinfoil hat. A White Nationalist leader with hard-line [sic] conservative views of god, country, guns, and traditional values. A fatherly figure to the many young members of his political group. Quick to embrace and believe nonsensical conspiracy theories. Strong singer.
Here’s a full performance of this theatrical oddity that lasts nearly two hours. It’s about as dumb as it sounds. Possibly dumber. It’s one of the most confusing and messy productions I’ve ever witnessed, and I find it nearly impossible for me to discern what the playwright’s angle is or whether it’s intended as a comeuppance to her dad. I’m not sure what the point is, and I’m even less sure that Evans knows what her point is.
Amazingly, the show is scheduled to start a three-month run on April 1, 2023 at Jerry Presley’s God and Country Theatre in Branson, Missouri, that little Hillbilly Las Vegas nestled away in the Ozarks. Join me next year in Branson, will you?
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
37 comments
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/white-lives-matter-banners-hung-27628084
I thought this would be of interest.
We are in an orchestrated recession intended to give employers the upper hand in their campaign against remote work. Employers who pay nowhere near a wage commensurate with the local cost of living want to force their employees to choose between exorbitant rents and a 30-year mortgage on a house they can’t afford so they can report to the officeeveryday for no particular reason. Nevermind that we’re all just temps in a casualized gig economy with no guarantee of a job for the next three weeks, let alone the next thirty years.
I suppose there’s always the migrant worker option. Husbands can shack up in bunkhouses and send wives remittances to buy groceries and pay the bills. Such a blatant campaign to immiserate the population must be seen to be believed, and it’s hard to believe even when you’re watching it unfold before your very eyes.
As for the cable guy murder, I’m no expert on the issue, but I don’t see why the fact that the perpetrator was off-duty should have anything to do with the underlying negligent hiring theory. I assume the verdict will be reduced, though that won’t make the headlines.
Black dysfunction continues across America. The homicide spike that began in 2020 continues. Millions pour across the border. Jan 6 prisoners languish in jail. Recession looms. Geopolitical turmoil reduces American influence. The NWO continues to plot, to reduce us all to the level of serfdom. Our trannified and negrofied country belches forth human vermin from it’s bowels.
There’s nothing we can do. I wish there was something but because of mass surveillance it’s impossible to stop these blur addled normies.
” zero customer complaints about his behavior.”
Dead old ladies tell no tales. Rather suspicious in itself. Did they notice a steep decline in customers on his route?
As for paying the toll, let’s ask another famous Philly crew:
https://youtu.be/a7wTNtlya2A
The musical-comedy sounds a howl like something dreamed by Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park. It reminds one of Jerry Springer: the Opera from 2005 (the American t.v. version has David Soul as Springer) which was originally produced in London (England) and written by British stand-up comedians Stewart Lee and Richard Thomas. The U.K. t.v. version when broadcast caused a blasphemy rumpus. I think one of the guests featuring in this musical-comedy was a tranny. I just checked the IMDB.com description and I’ve recalled correctly:
“Jerry Springer-The Opera’ tells the story of a day in the job of world famous talk-show host, Jerry Springer. Jerry has to sort out a number of guests problems; including a man who wants to dress up as a baby, a man with 3 lovers (one of them a trans person) and a fat woman who wants to be a pole dancer. However, on this particular day, something out of the ordinary will happen.”
The ‘out of the ordinary’ is Springer having a near death experience and meeting Jesus – hence the blasphemy rumpus. Plus one of the guests sings a song blaming God for his queerness and one sings a song telling people who don’t like him to ‘talk to the hand’ the catchphrase then popular really dates it.
A mult-racial society has never succeeded. The fault belongs to the Europeans who allow their homelands from Europe to Australia to become multi-racial.
A postscript on the 7 billion dollar damages payout required of cable company, Charter Communications. Their annual net income for 2019, 2020, 2021 was 1.7 billion, 3.2 B, and 4.7B. So this substantially more than a year’s profits. I wonder what that will do to the cable bills of its 26 million customers.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CHTR/charter-communications/net-income
And kudos to Jim for calling Scientific American to task for shoddy reporting of science. The contribution of too much protein in the diet causing increased urea is probably small compared to the massive amounts of pure urea in fertilizer and how much of it winds up in runoff from rain and irrigation. While I think an actual scientific report tends to stick more to the facts, science ‘reporters’ endlessly pick and choose which angles they want to promote. The photos of the writer with the nose ring… might that be suggestive that she is a political moderate?
The radical trans women factions are still in denial that science once called them men to remind their doctors to screen for prostate cancer and not pregnancy. But if they want to do battle with radical feminists – really, do we want to take up arms and fight for one side of the other. I’m reaching for more popcorn.
And if the Branson play gives the conspiracy focused conservative a tinfoil hat, a recent study finds that Liberals have quite a few conspiracy beliefs of their own.
https://twitter.com/JoeUscinski/status/1551213579071807489
And not that long ago the left was accusing Trump of a jobs reports conspiracy
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/business/economy/jobs-report-data.html
I wonder what that will do to the cable bills of its 26 million customers.
As I said above, that award will be reduced, because there are constitutional limits on punitive damages. The home improvement economy couldn’t function without public trust in the vetting procedures of companies that offer services involving access to customers’ houses. When something goes wrong here, I have to let plumbers and other tradesmen into my house when I am here alone with my kids during the workday. I have never worried about it, and now I have more reassurance that our safety is top priority.
But if they want to do battle with radical feminists – really, do we want to take up arms and fight for one side of the other.
We want to tell the truth. Apart from that, I can’t help but notice that you are willing to side with anti-White cable companies but not women who insist that transwomen are fake women.
Apart from that, I can’t help but notice that you are willing to side with anti-White cable companies but not women who insist that transwomen are fake women.
Everybody knows that trannies aren’t the real article; saying it out loud or typing it into a comment box won’t magically make trannies go away. Ben Shapiro said that trannies aren’t real women on Joe Rogan’s podcast 5 years ago in front of millions of people and it didn’t set the transgender movement back.
Anyone who doesn’t realize or admit that trannies aren’t women won’t be swayed by these misguided lectures on human anatomy and genetics, as if ignorance of basic biology is the issue.
The real issue are the benefits trannies get by identifying as women (Affirmative Action etc) and the lack of any traditional role that would act as a barrier to entry. I guarantee that an Amish man who transitioned and visually passed himself off as an Amish girl wouldn’t get very far before people started asking him why he (she) wasn’t married with kids. No one would dare ask such a question of Western women, because it’s “her choice” i.e. she decides if and when she gets married i.e. marriage and a family is no longer a cultural norm for young women in the West.
Pointing at trannies and saying “They aren’t real women!” ad nauseam won’t do anything.
No one would dare ask such a question of Western women, because it’s “her choice” i.e. she decides if and when she gets married i.e. marriage and a family is no longer a cultural norm for young women in the West.
What on Earth makes you think that women make the decisions about marriage?
https://relationshipsinamerica.com/marriage-and-divorce/whos-more-interested-in-marrying-men-or-women
By the way, do you have a problem with women deciding if and when we get married? This is a right women have had for a very long time as many entered convents and worked in traditional feminine occupations like teaching, nursing, social work, etc. What exactly are you… proposing?
This is a right women have had for a very long time as many entered convents and worked in traditional feminine occupations like teaching, nursing, social work, etc. What exactly are you… proposing?
I’m saying that as long as women have their rights, transwomen are just something we will have to live with. The TERFs are on a self-defeating mission.
Men transition into women because they benefit from it in some way. If men gained no benefits from transitioning into women, transgenderism wouldn’t be an issue. A man can “transition” into a woman and instantly get special legal protections, Affirmative Action and 50-50 custody of his children in the event of a divorce.
If motherhood was a culturally enforced priority in Western societies, it wouldn’t be enough for a man to look like a woman because womanhood would involve doing something that men cannot do. But Western men let women choose their own path, which sometimes involves spinsterhood. That means that a man who transitions into a woman doesn’t have to do anything differently than a modern woman.
You’re not going to win a debate with trannies and their supporters on what constitutes a woman.
Men transition into women because they benefit from it in some way. If men gained no benefits from transitioning into women, transgenderism wouldn’t be an issue. A man can “transition” into a woman and instantly get special legal protections, Affirmative Action and 50-50 custody of his children in the event of a divorce.
Yes, he can definitely get special legal protections, but as a tranny, not as a woman. Affirmative action does, arguably, create perverse incentives, but only in very limited fields where women are very underrepresented. Less than 1% of the population of the U.S. is transgender. Therefore, over 99% of men disagree with you that transgenderism is a rational response to incentives created by women having the right to choose if and when they will marry.
Of course, you’re preferred solution would certainly create incentives for FTM transitions, so that would be a wash. You manosphere creeps remind me of the Gray Lady. According to the NYT, there is no social problem that can’t be solved by more immigration. Likewise, to you, there is no social problem that can’t be solved by cracking down on women.
If motherhood was a culturally enforced priority in Western societies, it wouldn’t be enough for a man to look like a woman because womanhood would involve doing something that men cannot do. But Western men let women choose their own path, which sometimes involves spinsterhood. That means that a man who transitions into a woman doesn’t have to do anything differently than a modern woman.
I notice you’re still assuming, without evidence, that women are to blame for low birth rates. How do you know it is not fatherhood that needs to be “culturally enforced”?
Women initiate 75-percent of divorce. Therefore you can deduce that they initiate 95-percent of all breakups. Women do the selecting/deselecting. This is not debatable. It’s women creating male incels, not the other way around. There is next to zero incentive for a significant amount of men to protect ‘women’s rights’ or maintain this system as it is because it is the direct inverse of men’s. It took 3-5 percent of the population to make the American Revolution happen. What we are seeing now is a devolution from mass male apathy from a much higher percentage of men. Somewhere between one-fourth to one-third.
All of these things happening simultaneously is inevitable. The M2F trans and male workforce dropout from everything from labor to military to college. Legions of young men have nothing to invest in because they are being denied by women refusing to settle down or even give them dates. As awful as the trans thing is it provides the only pushback to feminism all on its own. I salute them.
Women initiate 75-percent of divorce. Therefore you can deduce that they initiate 95-percent of all breakups.
How does that follow, exactly? Please explain.
Anyway, of course women are more likely to file for divorce, for a couple of reasons. Most importantly, time is of the essence. (Some men like to gloat about this.) If a relationship is doomed, it is most pressing for women to move on before they run out of time to have children. If your husband is taking you for granted without the pressures of children, and while you’re still young and pretty, you may decide, quite rationally, that it’s time to cut your losses (the sunk cost of time invested) and move on.
Second, men are more likely to be unfit spouses (alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals, perpetually unemployed, compulsive gamblers, chronic cheaters, etc.) The spouse at fault often has no incentive to file for divorce, because they know they will be held accountable, i.e. forced to pay child support instead of spending money on their new girlfriend or bad habits or whatever.
Women do the selecting/deselecting. This is not debatable.
Only the prettiest ones, probably the only ones you ever notice or care about.
Legions of young men have nothing to invest in because they are being denied by women refusing to settle down or even give them dates.
No, they don’t have anything to invest in because they have been economically dislocated by an insatiably greedy and hostile elite.
As awful as the trans thing is it provides the only pushback to feminism all on its own. I salute them.
Well, given that we’re talking about less than 1% of the population, I don’t think this “pushback” will come to much, though it might very well destroy women’s sports. That won’t do men any good, though.
Ok you’re playing possum if you don’t understand that women initiate virtually all breakups. Your other answers provide an alleged reason: ‘Time is of the essence,’ which I used to believe, but not anymore because it has next to nothing to do with fertility. Women live much longer than men and have far more value than men regardless of fertility. That was just a manosphere cope I used to believe in myself until I saw the actual data.
So, women have all the time in the world to be married, unmarried etc and they are certainly utilizing that time to not be married or have children anymore across all regions and demographics. The actual biological clock is on men. A man has a certain window to prove himself to women before it becomes a descending loss and he becomes prematurely aged relative to women, in addition to social awkwardness. This is where the incel thing comes in. The 2005 movie 40-Year-Old Virgin would never be made today because it is too on the nose and would underscore the plight of entire generations of men being unselected/deselected by women.
You can’t blame the ‘elites’ or the moneychangers for women not selecting men. That is women utilizing ‘women’s rights.’ It’s not ‘Muh economy.’ It is Briffault’s Law.
All of that stuff you say about men being addicts and criminals is true besides infidelity. Women initiate divorce because women are not monogamous. They do most of the extramarital business. They don’t want only one man tying them down. Yet men are monogamous. Never the twain shall meet. That is where ‘patriarchy’ comes from. ‘Monogamy’ = ‘patriarchy’ …Easy divorce, birth control/abortion etc was a huge feminist legislation agenda for a reason. All women are pro-choice regardless of race. Kansas just proved this with an even higher margin than Trump won by.
But let me remind you again that it is women who choose these types of delinquent men, whom they eventually grow tired of just like the square guys they settle for and grow tired of also at some point. This is undeniably true because most divorce is no-fault. It’s public record. The grueling process that takes years to finish is initiated by women because they are incentivized, but even if they weren’t incentivized they would still do it. This is proven by skyrocketing divorce rates in the 1960s in the years before divorce was liberalized, which was basically a formality.
‘The spouse at fault often has no incentive to file for divorce, because they know they will be held accountable…’
You don’t say. That’s called feminism. It favors women. A mother could literally have a needle hanging out of her elbow and still gain custody of the kids, the house and his pension. But I’m not here to make a mythical ‘MGTOW’ (no such thing) talking point. I’m talking about the rising cohort of men who are never even given a chance to have sex. Talk about a waste of resources. When given the choice, women will not get married or have even close to replacement-level amounts of children across every race and region. This is why depopulation is occurring across the world. Men have zero say in this because virtually all men want children. She has her pick of the litter if the rare Chad doesn’t want any, but she chooses not to.
You have zero proof ‘the prettiest’ only do the selecting. Tinder analytics demonstrate that the man is often the better looking because women can freely line them up since women care far more about looks than men. The ugliest woman has more sex than the hottest man. The average woman has far more sex and far more sex partners than the average man. This is not debatable. That is why the incel slur women throw around is so offensive because it is true.
As for the transsexualism being an infinitesimal minority, that is my point exactly. They are an outsized influence beyond anything we’ve ever seen aside from one other group. Women’s sports is just a lesbian thing, not the main issue with transsexualism. They are doing what 40 different species of fish are doing: Protandry. They are proving just how advantageous it is to be a woman in this society. It is night and day.
Lastly, you sidestepped the other topic. The mass male dropout from society. All of these things you take for granted are disappearing primarily because of the incel question. There simply is no incentive for a large minority of men to buttress this system as it currently stands because they have no hope of progeny and nothing to protect.
Therefore, over 99% of men disagree with you that transgenderism is a rational response to incentives created by women having the right to choose if and when they will marry.
That wasn’t the argument. The argument is that transgenderism can only happen in a society that has ditched motherhood as a social norm for women.
Just as being a man is not about having male reproductive parts, being a woman is not about having female reproductive organs. The phrase “man up” is about behavioral and social roles that men are expected to obey.
The same thing used to be true for women. Jane Austen published her works under male pseudonyms because it was not considered proper for a woman at that time to have a career. Today, being a woman is totally down to the individual woman. It could mean putting on man pants and working 9-5 in an office tower or getting pregnant at 17 and living as a single mom on welfare.
There is no role that is bound up with the concept of womanhood anymore. That means a guy who wants to become a woman only has to look the part. He doesn’t have to do anything that is mandated of women that would rule his transition out like have and raise kids. That’s why you won’t find any “trans women” among the Amish. An Amish tranny would be a failure as a man (men don’t wear dresses) and worthless as a woman (can’t bear and raise children).
That’s why all of these labored articles about genes and anatomy are beside the point. The transgenderism phenomenon has zero to do with ignorance about human anatomy and everything to do with feminism.
I notice you’re still assuming, without evidence, that women are to blame for low birth rates.
The ball bas been in your court for about five decades. Women decide if, when and with whom they fall pregnant. A man can’t force a woman to give birth, but a woman can force a man to pay child support for a child whose existence he has no say in. (Why is abortion a woman’s “right” and not a man’s right, since he has to pay for the child if she decides to keep it? My wallet, my choice.)
Women are the gatekeepers of sex and of life. So yes, Europe’s low fertility rates are entirely their doing (or lack of doing) and therefore entirely their fault.
OMC, you continue to single out feminism rather than individualism in general. Do you only object to women being individualist OMC, or do you have a problem with individualism in general? I don’t disagree with you that transgenderism is a function of individualism. To a certain extent, that is a good thing. Trannies have been around for as long as I can remember. And they have always used women’s bathrooms, too. We were willing to accommodate anyone who was willing to try hard enough to pass that we weren’t 100% sure were biological males. We would even chit chat while pondering our noses or whatever. The problem started when they cheaters and frauds like Lia Thomas started to demand the right to compete as biological women against other biological women. The manosphere response to this has been childish, pathetic nanaboobooism.
Now, there are all sorts of things that are conditional upon other things, OMC. It doesn’t follow that the only way to stop the conditioned thing is by eliminating the condition. In 2021, 42,000 people died in fatal car crashes. If we didn’t have cars, those people would still be alive. Does it follow that we shouldn’t have cars. No. Cars provide freedom and mobility that people value, and safety measure short of getting rid of cars have been reasonably effective at reducing per capita traffic deaths over time. Maybe we decide to develop more mass transit, which would allow for comparable freedom and mobility
You do not do this. Rather than look for forward-looking solutions, you insist that reaction is the only possibility, though you do this only when it comes to women’s rights. It creates the appearance that you are obsessed with controlling women, and any social problem is, for you, an opportunity to make your pitch for our humiliation and disenfranchisement.
Now, if you feel that women have more freedom to choose their own lifestyle than men, that is a legitimate grievance, though I can’t say I have seen any evidence of it. Where is this pressure on men to marry and have children? I’m not seeing it. Yes, your parents are going to pressure you, because they want grandchildren, but they do that at least as much to their daughters.
Women decide if, when and with whom they fall pregnant.
Do you want women to start purposely getting pregnant without securing the approval of their partner first, OMC, yes or no? A straight answer, please. Don’t f*** around. Yes, we do make that decision, but we make that decision in consultation with our partners.
A man can’t force a woman to give birth, but a woman can force a man to pay child support for a child whose existence he has no say in. (Why is abortion a woman’s “right” and not a man’s right, since he has to pay for the child if she decides to keep it? My wallet, my choice.)
Abortion is a woman’s right because she bears most of the burden of parenthood. We have to pay for the child and go through pregnancy and childbirth. Even if a woman goes on welfare, like my mom did when I was born, she will still pay in hopes and dreams, because to stay on welfare, you have to stay poor. Therefore, as between the two, it is the woman who should have the final say. Once a child is born, the child has an absolute right to the support of both parents. I’m sorry you are so resentful of the natural order of things, and I’m sorry that you feel that being required to support your children is some sort of grave injustice.
My wallet, my choice.
At common law, if I’m not mistaken, unmarried fathers had no child support obligations. They also had no rights to the child whatsoever and were presumed unfit parents. (If you were fit to be a father, you would marry the child’s mother.) Women were therefore free to consent to adoption by third parties or by a stepfather if the mother so chose. Many women nowadays would take that deal any day of the week and twice on Sunday. It’s too much hassle trying to coparent with spiteful, resentful men who really wish the child had never been born.
Women are the gatekeepers of sex and of life. So yes, Europe’s low fertility rates are entirely their doing (or lack of doing) and therefore entirely their fault.
You can carry on repeating this over and over and again. That won’t make it any more true. For that, you’re going to have to produce some sort of evidence.
This is pointless because we are talking past each other. I tried years ago with you and I admit it is much harder now with this strategy and platform because it is far more dour, whereas manosphere gibberish that I once believed in is more hopeful and populist. It’s ironic because your inveterate argumentation dovetails with it exactly because you both believe in the same concepts, which is why it was so easy. You are basically a female MGTOW. But I would be arguing in bad faith if I continued with something I no longer believed in.
Then you pretend women are asexual in the same post even though women have a higher libido than men. How else do you explain how the average woman has far more sex partners and sex overall than the average man today? That’s a very strange Victorian-Pankhurst pincer move.
You still believe it’s the 1950s and women are oppressed and men are all manipulative alphas rather than face reality and see that the newer generations of men are clueless social misfits without a chance at even kissing girls because they don’t pass the looks threshold of women. I have not made one argument for ‘men’s rights’ because there is no such thing. Nor have I ‘devalued’ women. If you actually read my post you would see I said several times that women are worth far more than men to the point of hyperinflation from thirsty incel simps trying to get an opportunity. I’m not trying to ‘own’ you literally or metaphorically, but I did want more of a dialogue than this. Unfortunately, I won’t get that because you’re only here to spread even more feminism. Hence, the woman will always win. It’s called a ‘man’s word,’ yet it’s the woman’s word that is not only never held to account, but backed up by the authorities and chivalrous vigilantes. So this is a great example of a man withdrawing because there is nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Yet here you are pretending I have power over you.
I still can’t believe your post about domestic violence. Most people are unmarried and no, ‘cohabitation’ has not reduced the deficit. The ‘unpartnered’ share is growing, directed by ‘pansexual’ women. Yet here you are testifying in 1993 to Congress for VAWA. All you care about are women. Meanwhile, I care about my people, who are being left behind by women.
Your stats are still all wrong. I actually collate TFR by race. White women are 1.5, but I have to admit I’m exhausted by this thread because you’re not here to be reasonable. You want men like me to suffer just for merely disagreeing with you. That is why feminism is so dangerous. Think about that. You feminists have won so decisively that you’ve disenfranchised a growing share of men from polite society. Yet it still isn’t enough. You want revenge for oppression you’ve never experienced against men who never oppressed anybody. Once again, this has nothing to do with advancing the European people. You can’t even try to assimilate feminism with whiteness. Instead you’re simping for Indian and Chinese women. This is what feminism leads to. Liberal democracy is nothing but a vector for feminism + multiculturalism = white genocide. I will cry tears of joy when the last government of liberal democracy bites the dust. You still never made clear what is you want besides silencing white males like me.
OMC, you continue to single out feminism rather than individualism in general. Do you only object to women being individualist OMC, or do you have a problem with individualism in general
Feminism is not a form of individualism. Individualism is contrary to the nature of women because for aeons women depended on men to protect, provision and provide for them. That’s why women scream when they are in danger. They scream when something unexpected or frightening happens for the same reason children cry when they are hurt. Women and children both make lots of noise when they are in danger so that someone else (adults, men) can take responsibility for them. If women didn’t have risk-averse instincts the human race would have died off.
A being who instinctually depends on others for protection is not capable of practicing individualism. Individualism involves self-sufficiency. The very fact that women had to petition men to get their “rights” rather than seize control of the government and impose their own laws means that they are subordinate and dependent on men. They depend on men for their rights and so they can’t live as individuals. That’s not what feminism is about anyway.
Feminism is about gaming the sexual marketplace in favor of women to suit their mating habits. Women have socialized the costs of hypergamy through taxpayer funded abortion and birth control so they don’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancies (and since they don’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancies, they don’t have to vet men for provider status). If they decide to keep the kid, the court system can force the father to take a paternity test and pay child support. The woman also gets housing, scholarships, and food stamps. There is even a push to change the definition of rape to a counterfactual where a woman would not have slept with a guy had she known the truth about him (i.e. she gave consent under false pretenses). The benefits of hypergamy are subsidized through public schools and the university system, where women can go and live on government backed loans. College is an environment where women can pick any guy they want and not suffer any dire consequences.
Women wanted equal access to the workplace, but once they got there they clamored for sexual harassment laws so they could punish men for victimless crimes like rude jokes, flirting and job promotions in exchange for sex. They have used the state to make the workplace “safe” in the same way they have used the state to make being a slut safe. It has destroyed their ability to pair bond with a man once they are ready to settle down and destroyed their fertility by delaying marriage and childbirth.
If we didn’t have cars, those people would still be alive. Does it follow that we shouldn’t have cars. No.
Feminism can’t be reformed. The nature of women necessitates what they will do with their [sic] freedom. They will always seek resources and defer responsibility to men. The idea of choosing your own path in life and take full responsibility for the outcome is foreign to them. “Ok, I’m gonna go to college and get railed by the football team. But if I get pregnant or my heart broken, I’m not gonna get a taxpayer funded abortion and file false rape charges” said no woman ever.
Yes, we do make that decision, but we make that decision in consultation with our partners.
Plenty of women get pregnant without consulting anyone, either because the guy isn’t around or she doesn’t care to inform him.
It doesn’t matter if a woman consults a her husband or boyfriend about having kids. Her decision is the only one that matters because it is backed by the state. The man can’t legally compel the woman to get an abortion or to give birth. That decision is 100% in the woman’s hands.
If a woman wants to get pregnant, no one can stop her. She can get plowed a million ways to Sunday until she’s got a baby bump. At that point she has unilateral power over the child’s fate. She can get pregnant if she wants to and give birth if she wants to. The guy who knocked her up has no legal say in this.
I hope that answers your “don’t fuck around” question.
We have to pay for the child and go through pregnancy and childbirth
If you have to pay for the child what is child support for? The state provides for the woman if the man isn’t able to.
For that, you’re going to have to produce some sort of evidence.
Women have unilateral power to bring children into this world. I repeat: if women want to have kids no one can stop them. The fertility crisis is 100% their fault.
Like Ricky always told Lucy, you got some ‘splaining to do.
Ok you’re playing possum if you don’t understand that women initiate virtually all breakups.
Did the pump and dumps we’ve all seen a 100 times never happen? Are we all deluded?
The actual biological clock is on men.
Then why are men more likely than women to marry after a divorce? And why do they marry women who are younger than their first wives? I’m sure you have a perfectly rational explanation for these data.
https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/12/9/7332691/men-remarry-younger-women
…Easy divorce, birth control/abortion etc was a huge feminist legislation agenda for a reason.
What you call “easy divorce” was considered a priority, in part, to prevent femicide. The Temperance ladies had tried to reduce violence against women with Prohibition. It worked, but was eventually repealed anyway. “Easy divorce” has also worked to reduced femicide. That said, it has also had negative consequences for women. I would gladly see it go, though I’m sure you wouldn’t like the results.
All women are pro-choice regardless of race.
If that were true, Yours truly would never have been born.
But let me remind you again that it is women who choose these types of delinquent men,
You seem to have trouble grasping the basics of supply and demand. More girls are born than boys. They’re also more likely to die young. Now, add on top of that the fact that men are more likely to be total derelicts than women, and it should be obvious that many women are going to be left with two choices: remain single and childless or hook up with a marginal prospect and hope for the best. Whichever they choose, misogynists like you will be on hand to spit venomous hatred at them for it.
This is undeniably true because most divorce is no-fault. It’s public record.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. People file for no-fault divorce because it is simpler. Just because the court order doesn’t mention anything about marital misconduct doesn’t mean there wasn’t any. Without no-fault divorce, you would need a finding of fault on the record to get a divorce. That way, we would all know the truth and hopefully people like you would shut up, or at least, noone would listen to you. Again, though, I’m sure you wouldn’t like the results.
A mother could literally have a needle hanging out of her elbow and still gain custody of the kids, the house and his pension.
So you say.
Men have zero say in this because virtually all men want children.
So you say.
Tinder analytics demonstrate that the man is often the better looking because women can freely line them up since women care far more about looks than men.
I thought women care about status. Please get your story straight.
What was that you were saying about men being naturally monogamous and women being inclined to casual sex? If that were so, would it not be easier for men to get sex than women? Please explain.
They are proving just how advantageous it is to be a woman in this society.
Then why all the teenage girls claiming to be boys? Please explain.
Lastly, you sidestepped the other topic. The mass male dropout from society. All of these things you take for granted are disappearing primarily because of the incel question. There simply is no incentive for a large minority of men to buttress this system as it currently stands because they have no hope of progeny and nothing to protect.
I didn’t sidestep it at all. I agree with you. I just think outsourcing, immigration, and now extreme housing inflation rather than women’s rights are the problem.
Pew research is a survey, not actual analytics like the CDC or even adult websites, which are the largest clearinghouses in the world. So your circa 1950s theory is stricken from the record. Try again. Next time do not use 2017 MGTOW talking points I used to spout to you on another website. MGTOW and the manosphere is a hoax for men who cannot handle reality. No man chooses to be single or childless. That’s like a man walking off his cubicle career. He only gets to do that once and then he never gets it back because no man is irreplaceable anymore.
‘Pump and dump’ is classical MGTOW propaganda mythology. Women created hookup culture and thrive in it, not men. It’s women who want ‘FWB.’ That is why abortion, birth control and divorce is so important to women. It isn’t lotharios capitalizing. It is simply women wanting variety because they get tired of their ‘boring’ husbands/boyfriends. That’s all it ever was, even in Shakespearean times they all fretted about their horny wives being unfaithful. That is why whenever patriarchy occurs, virtually every man has a wife and the birthrates skyrocket to overpopulation. It is basically medieval monoculture, whereas this manosphere coping theory, borrowed from feminism, is men specializing in crop rotation (‘spray and pray’). But it just isn’t true. There are no stats to back this up. Being with one woman is far more productive than being with several.
Even if your data were correct, it isn’t relevant anymore because most adults are unmarried than married, and the average age of the shrinking share who are keeps rising, along with the first age of maternity. But obviously there is a ceiling on how high that can get. Yet women are hurtling towards it all on their own.
I used to agree with you on reforming divorce laws as solution to this nightmare, but it isn’t one. Women would marry even less because there would literally be zero reason for them to ever settle for one guy. The manosphere severely underestimated the value of women relative to men. Men would becomes even bigger simps if it were ever reformed because it would create more thirst. So no, there is no downside for women with feminism. That is why they won’t let it be reformed. It just keeps on advancing no matter the social cost.
I can’t believe you are arguing for prohibition now, as a feminist argument no less. That’s basically sharia for women against men. Pro-choice means you are for abortion not being illegal, even if you never have one yourself, which most women will never do. But they all want the option to, which is the difference between assault and menacing.
You did not just say more baby girls are born than boys! You couldn’t be more wrong. You’re an unserious debater. 105 boys are born for every 100 girls, including India and China it is 107-100. This is a biological phenomenon that went over your head. The ‘crossover’ of more women than men only occurs deep into middle age, so long after your fertility timetable theory. I recommend you look up any demographic pyramid for any country and realize how laughably wrong you are about the sausage fest young women live in.
But again, let’s go with your theory of supply/demand, which is yet again another MGTOW talking point (I’m starting to think you are one yourself). If this were how women actually selected there would be no incel phenomenon. But there is and it is getting worse because the ratio does not factor. Colleges are 60-40 female-male, yet inceldom is the worst there. It defies all of your bijective rationalizing because that is not how women select.
‘People’ don’t file for divorce because it is easier. Women do. It’s not even close. 75-25. The year 1910 called and it wants its narrative back. Get with the Current Year and acknowledge this imbalance that entirely favors your sex over mine.
‘I thought women care about status.’
Don’t confuse me with MGTOW, which isn’t real. Women care primarily about looks, which ‘status’ is a part of in how other women see a man. It is not easier for men to gain sex. You’re arguing in bad faith.
‘I just think outsourcing, immigration, and now extreme housing inflation rather than women’s rights are the problem.’
Sorry, but you can’t finesse this. You don’t want it to be true, but it is. We could have all of those things and still easily subsist because it couldn’t hold a candle to the destruction to our birthrates caused entirely by feminism. Feminism is great for women. That’s why they are all feminists. But it is bad for everybody and everything else besides corporations. Feminism is anti-fragile. It emerged from Marxism during its heyday and now it has coalesced to neoliberalism like a hermit crab. I used to joke that democracy would disappear before feminism and now it is really happening. I guess that is one solution to women’s suffrage.
You did not just say more baby girls are born than boys! You couldn’t be more wrong. You’re an unserious debater. 105 boys are born for every 100 girls, including India and China it is 107-100.
First of all, I’m just going to note, that once in your life, you’re correct. More boys are born than girls. I was wrong. Of course, India and China have a particularly distorted gender ratio, because they have sex selective abortions, and sometimes just outright kill baby girls, precisely because they, like you, devalue if not detest women. That’s not working out very well for young men, and even worse for little girls, who can’t play outside without fear of being kidnapped and forced into prostitution to satisfy the lust of naturally-monogamous men.
Now, on to the rest of your nonsense.
Pew research is a survey, not actual analytics like the CDC or even adult websites, which are the largest clearinghouses in the world. So your circa 1950s theory is stricken from the record.
You are not entitled to strike anything from the record. That is something judges (ideally, neutral arbiters) get to do. Unless you have countervailing evidence to the effect that men don’t remarry younger women, the rest of us will go with the Pew survey, especially since it just confirms what we already knew anyway. (By the way, it’s interesting that you claim to have changed your mind about certain factual contentions of the manosphere, but you nonetheless continue pushing the same agenda: a backlash against women. I suspect nothing will ever change that.)
That is why whenever patriarchy occurs, virtually every man has a wife and the birthrates skyrocket to overpopulation.
Except that, as I mentioned above, we don’t need to look through history books to see that this is nonsense. We can tell it just by looking at extreme patriarchy today (as in rural India), where poor men have no shot at all of getting a wife unless their parents literally go out and kidnap one.
Besides that, patriarchal societies throughout history have simply disposed of excess men by using them as cannon fodder. That way, a dirty old man whose sixteen-year-old wife died in childbirth can just go out and get another sixteen-year-old wife. Everyone can still pretend that every man can get a wife because all the desperate second, third, and fourth sons with no hope of a future went off and died in the Crusades, where they could either strike it rich, or failing that, get an express ticket to Heaven.
Being with one woman is far more productive than being with several.
Not if you’re rich. Hence the male tendency to hoard wealth to the detriment of his competitors.
Even if your data were correct, it isn’t relevant anymore because most adults are unmarried than married, and the average age of the shrinking share who are keeps rising, along with the first age of maternity. But obviously there is a ceiling on how high that can get. Yet women are hurtling towards it all on their own.
It certainly is relevant. You said that men, not women, have to gather their rosebuds. If that were true, men would be less, not more, likely to remarry after divorce, and they would marry older, not younger, women. All the hype about the “sheconomy” fails to take account of the ongoing normalization of unmarried cohabitation.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/109402/age-24-marriage-wins.aspx#:~:text=The%20percentages%20married%20and%20cohabiting,gradually%20falls%20back%20to%2014%25.
Women would marry even less because there would literally be zero reason for them to ever settle for one guy.
Weren’t you saying that women can take men for everything they’re worth in a divorce because muh biased courts or something? So why wouldn’t they marry?
I can’t believe you are arguing for prohibition now, as a feminist argument no less.
I didn’t argue for Prohibition. I simply stated that it had the salutary effect of reducing violence against women. Whether it was good policy would depend on all of its effects taken together. I am inclined to believe that it was good policy, relentlessly attacked by those who controlled the booze trade, but I don’t know enough about it to take a definite position.
https://vinepair.com/articles/jewish-prohibition-bootlegging/
It is not easier for men to gain sex.
It certainly is not. It is much easier for women to get sex, primarily because you want it and we mostly don’t. Quit playing dumb while you accuse others of “bad faith.”
We could have all of those things and still easily subsist because it couldn’t hold a candle to the destruction to our birthrates caused entirely by feminism.
And you still have no evidence that women’s rights, rather than birth control, is to blame for low birth rates. You attempt to conflate the two, but they are not the same. You could crack down on women all you want, and it would do nothing to raise birthrates so long as birth control is available.
Of course, even if you could prove that, you would still have to prove that reversing women’s rights is the only solution. Let’s go back to our Prohibition example. Allowing men to drink alcohol causes them to assault women. Therefore, men shouldn’t be allowed to drink alcohol. Do you see the problem with this argument? Of course you do, because it’s men’s rights that are under attack. But just in case you don’t:
1. It punishes all for the actions of a minority. A more tailored solution would be to require wife-beaters to abstain from alcohol as a condition of their probation. (No White woman has 1.7 children. The majority have 2 or more, a minority of childless women bring down the average.)
2. It fails to even consider other ways that violence against women could be reduced, to wit, reducing economic stress on men with families.
Again, I am not arguing for or against Prohibition. I’m simply pointing out that it doesn’t immediately follow that, once a cause is identified, the appropriate course of action is to eliminate the cause.
My response was accidentally posted above in the other thread. You can reply here again.
If it wasn’t clear enough, I’m siding with cable company customers and their high bills moreso than the cable company. And women are far more complex and ‘diverse’ to just blanket lump them all as one to just side with. When the trans are fighting the purple haired rad feminists and TERFs, I don’t see a point of getting involved when it’s like a good sitcom. But if the trans start siphoning mammogram screening in favor of their hormones, I’ve got your back.
If it wasn’t clear enough, I’m siding with cable company customers and their high bills moreso than the cable company.
Yes, this is the typical argument businesses use to avoid accountability while posing as populists in solidarity with the plebs. “We’ll have to raise our prices!” So be it, I say.
Of course, as Jim pointed out, this old lady didn’t burn the coal, but she still had to pay the toll. The cable company, on the other hand, certainly did burn the coal. The media has been in bed with nonwhites for all of living memory. They thought innocent White people would be the only victims. Now, they’re being placed in the awkward position of having to live up to the blank-slate egalitarianism they’ve been shoving down our throats for fifty plus years while trying to avoid ruinous liability for negligent hiring and retention of all that diversity they say is such a blessing.
Now that is worth the price of admission! Pass the popcorn.
Hold the cable company accountable and pass on the costs. It sounds a bit analogous to ‘defund the police’… if one of the cops fucks up, then everyone needs to pay and cities must burn to appease a few angry unreasonable types. Billions of dollars is far unreasonable and doesn’t even punish the actual offender. And the Left will just take the precedent and run with it when they feel it’s their turn. If a white lady’s family got this big award, so should all those black families in upstate New York. Maybe they can sue the supermarket chain for shitty security.
I’m sure Holden’s attorney is carefully asking if anyone at the cable company called him the N-word, or whether he might have been unfairly suspended at school. Or hey, did anyone ever call him the N-word? Someone else must be to blame.
The company should take some heat for keeping him on despite multiple infractions, but when someone lies on an application it’s not always easy to detect and it can be a full time job checking every reference who doesn’t pick up the phone the first few times when you have a stack of them to get through. And it’s way harder to fire a government employee than comcast. Just look at the quality of staff at the US postal service.
The company should take some heat for keeping him on despite multiple infractions, but when someone lies on an application it’s not always easy to detect and it can be a full time job checking every reference who doesn’t pick up the phone the first few times when you have a stack of them to get through.
Apparently the jury didn’t see it that way, and they knew a lot more about the case than you do. Did you read the plaintiff’s attorneys’ press release by any chance?
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/charter-spectrum-hit-with-combined-7-37-billion-verdict-for-robbery-murder-of-elderly-woman-by-cable-installer-301593825.html
Please keep us up to date on this case. You can let us know when the award is reduced to a fraction of its current size.
Lexi, I will await your own cable company to subscribe to. Thanks for the link. The cable company put forth some forged documents. A big no no. The press release is of course from the plaintiff’s law firm. They are suspiciously obscure about what exactly this forged document was. Just as this website seeks to issue the plain stats NYT tends to obfuscate, trial lawyers are famously left wing. I have nagging doubts that they sought this 7+ billion dollar settlement as a pro bono charity case. They typically get at least 33 percent of the settlement. So what is that, 2.4 million. Oops, no, 2.4 Billion dollars. Maybe they can help support Counter Currents.
We will have to agree to disagree. Make no mistake, few can be happy about what happened to this poor woman. But it is the cable company customers that will be paying for it. Perhaps you can post a followup if it seems that the CEO, CFO, and other C-suite officials are going to be taking substantial pay cuts that change their standard of living. Now if they had to at least 90 days in an urban jail, I suspect their attention to hiring details would become a little more acute.
I have nagging doubts that they sought this 7+ billion dollar settlement as a pro bono charity case.
Mr. Wilcox,
The plaintiff’s attorneys did not seek the 7B dollars. They asked for an unspecified amount in “exemplary damages” and argued that statutory limits on punitive damages do not apply because of the felonious nature of the cable company’s conduct. That’s all. The jury came up with that figure all on their own. The jurors–most of whom I presume have cable bills to pay– were quite simply beside themselves with disgust at the egregious facts of the case. You are entitled to your opinion, but please, try to be informed before rushing to judgment.
But it is the cable company customers that will be paying for it. Perhaps you can post a followup if it seems that the CEO, CFO, and other C-suite officials are going to be taking substantial pay cuts that change their standard of living.
This will be the third time that I have said this, but the award will be reduced and the company will not be paying 7B. Setting that aside for the moment, I have never understood this argument. It assumes that demand for cable service is so inelastic that cable companies can raise rates to cover any judgment, no matter how large. This would in turn assume that companies are already charging less than the market will bear without significant loss of customers. Why they would do that is beyond me, but I will note that I am not a bean counter of any sort, so I may very well be wrong about this.
This has become a seeing the forest vs. the trees discussion.
Are cable companies are ‘elastic’ product? Search for ‘cable company monopoly’. They get away with raising rates because competitors (when they exist) can offer far slower service. Cable TV is fairly inelastic in rural areas, but less so in urban areas. Broadband internet, often provided by cable, is inelastic.
Again, I’ll be delighted to read future updates that the settlement was reduced to 1-5 million dollars or that the CFO is taking a deep pay cut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDBq-OU1rHo
https://topverdict.com/lists/2020/united-states/top-10-wrongful-death-settlements
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24075900_Demand_elasticities_for_Internet_services
https://spcnetwork.uk/uploads/Broadband_Price_Elasticity.pdf
I squirrel my money away like a chipmunk storing nuts for the winter. The economy is as cyclic as the temperature of an unheated swimming pool and I’ll accept some shrinkage, but I refuse to transition to a “sheconomy” if it means a complete loss of my nuts. Like I told my ex-wife, you can have my nuts when you pry them from my cold dead hands.
Jim may not be a total shoe-in for the role of Phil, but his rendition of In The Ghetto shows he is most definitely a strong singer.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J5nxmqsmZds
Recession- “transition”
Abortion- “planning”
Murder- “gun violence”
Rampaging Negro youths- “teens”
Illegal immigrants- “immigrants”
Summer- “climate change”
Bruce Jenner- “Caitlyn”
on and on…
It has been predicted that by 2030, the majority of working women between 25 and 45 will be childless. The Future Is Female, after all, I guess.
“It has been predicted that by 2030, the majority of working women between 25 and 45 will be childless.”
Most of my adult life I’ve tried to help so don’t blame me.
The sheconomy proves that single women spend more than married women. It has nothing to do with provisioning. It’s all about vanity, which is what consumerism runs on. Neoliberalism and it’s disposable economy is a virus. ‘Muh economy’ is the greatest hoax ever.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment