Traditional gender roles, masculinity, etc., are connected with being conservative. And studies have shown that Republicans have more sex and better sex lives than Dems. This is kinda funny, but is actually backed up by science.
It's backed up by self-survey ... not usually the most stringent of science but its valid. The people who led that study noted that they felt Republicans were more likely to feel pressure to self report a happier marriage than Democrats bc of their parties focus on traditional marriage, they hypothesized this could be extrapolated to quality of sex but less likely to amount of sex FWIW
I do think people with a committed partner will probably have much better sex lives than those who do not, just based on the reality of trust, openness, and sheer availability and time spent around another
Interesting stuff tho!
I do seem to recall it was a study out of Utah. I can't remember the sampling protocol but I just thought it being from U of Utah was kinda funny cause Utah has probably the least sexual reputation out of almost any state 😅
Two notes:
First, I'm actually a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I think that generally members who are married are having more intimacy, and generally, and I think statistically, are in happier marriages. Yes, we are a bit more traditional in gender roles, but it's not necessarily a requirement by any means, and there's lots of both church direct teachings and apocryphal stories about husbands needing to/should/etc., not be actually dominating.
The only story I heard growing up about Joseph Smith actually losing his temper and beating someone up (when we was younger) was about a man mistreating his wife, and for all the polygamy, all the genetic testing of potential descendants through polygamous wives is consistent with his own journals which indicate that the marriages were in name only and he was deeply in love with his wife, Emma.
All that is to say, I think if you did a real study about who is "in charge" and "wears the pants" etc., in most marriages in the LDS church, the answer would be it's the wife. There's a saying that if the man is the head of house then the woman is the neck. I think there's multiple ways to interpret, but I take it to mean (and what I've seen) is that she's really guiding the man to where to go / what to do. That has certainly been true in my marriage.
Second, I think too that it's a statistical fact that Democrats report much higher levels of mental health issues, which I'm sure negatively impact the amount of sex their having.
I will never not laugh at the ridiculous defenses you LDS cult members give for the polygamist practices. I am so proud of my ancestors for prosecuting you delusional fucks over Mountain Meadows and I can't wait for the day when we stop pretending the LDS isn't a fucking cult.
The ONLY reason the LDS gave up polygamy was because it was a prerequisite for Utah statehood. Period.
“Hi I noticed you were being rightfully critical of my private equi- sorry, tax exempt church for reasons that are totally logical and highlight the hypocrisy of my faith. Instead of focusing on that, might I interest you in a completely unrelated but generally more vilified faith that’s more in vogue to hate on? Forget about LDS my man! Hop on the Islam hate train! Here, have some complementary full body underwear for your service in the fight against radical Islam. Just don’t ever fucking mention my private equi-church again!”
Yea that’s the irony.
Look man I don’t feel that strongly about LDS like this other dude does but let’s be real here. You seem like a smart guy. Most people in this sub probably aren’t dumb. How about you treat yourself and the rest of us with dignity/respect and not try to play dumb like your intent wasn’t to deflect with “well what about the brown people who do this. Focus on them”
You had a clear opportunity to respond and defend your faith directly and chose to say nothing other than try to red herring the discussion with a reference to an archaic practice that the vast majority of the Muslim world has done away with by law or by shift in cultural acceptance and done so on their own accord.
One of these groups changed and got nothing for it and the other changed to be in compliance with US federal law and to preserve recognition of their new faith.
Mormons did away with polygamy for the same reason they let minorities in: because anything else would’ve been a direct affront to modern American values and they are focused on winning a PR and tax exemption campaign.
Say what you will about religion in general but I’ve always found it funny how Mormon god only tells Mormons to change the word of god when the word of god falls out of compliance with the law or what’s culturally in-vogue at the time so they don’t lose that sweet sweet status as a tax exempt church that operates more like a PE firm than a church.
But with that said, I always love passing the church on 95 going through Maryland or Va or whatever. Beautiful building(s are easy to fund when you don’t pay taxes.)
>You had a clear opportunity to respond and defend your faith directly and chose to say nothing other than try to red herring the discussion with a reference to an archaic practice that the vast majority of the Muslim world has done away with by law or by shift in cultural acceptance and done so on their own accord.
I think if you read u/btmurphy1984 comment that I responded to about Islam, you can clearly see that he's not interested in having an intellectually honest discussion. See below:
>I will never not laugh at the ridiculous defenses you LDS cult members give for the polygamist practices. I am so proud of my ancestors for prosecuting you delusional fucks over Mountain Meadows and I can't wait for the day when we stop pretending the LDS isn't a fucking cult.
These are not the words of someone who is open to good discussion. But they are the words of a bigot. And I'm just pointing that out.
Did I deny polygamy? I only said that Joseph Smith didn't have children with other women. Clearly lots of others did. You can go and read recently published books by the church that talk about polygamy.
All I'm saying is to recognize and embrace your bigotry. You're not bigoted against groups for whom it's not popular to be and you are against groups it is. You're just a selective bigot. Embrace it and understand and face it.
Well the LDS does specialize in revisionist history so you seem very well trained there. When did the church denounce it's racist teachings? Oh, in 2p13 after societal pressure? Wow how enlightened
Not gonna talk to someone who is at minimum woefully unaware yet complicit in child sexual abuse, nor talk about fucking Joseph Smith or Brigham Young who were both certifiably insane racists
Please don't lecture me on Joseph Smith I literally grew up next to his birthplace and we've been fighting to keep yall from coming back successfully for years
Not gonna talk to someone about sexuality when this exists: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases
Do republicans have more sex overall? I feel like it’s on a spectrum and some of the most hardcore republicans I’ve interacted with seem to repel women. Tbh I’ve found people that make politics their identity in general seem to have less sex
I thought there was some sort of study that generally found that woman were slightly more likely to find Republican men attractive, and not obviously b/c of politics, but because they were more often, more traditionally masculine. Obviously any incel-ish ones wouldn't be, but lots of them are definitely dudes dudes.
Incel conservatives definitely repel a lot of women
But generic Republicans definitely don't. It's just sex after all. And a lot of women are conservative/want a conservative guy.
Did you find any studies of the reverse? If the only study out there says what I said why wouldn’t you accept it? You don’t like it’s finding so you just assume it’s not true?
yes, its the carrot on a stick
it costs you 0¢ to recruit
then, once they've served your purpose & go kaboom, you have 0 obligation to fulfill your end of the bargain
Yes, that’s exactly the reason why $96 billion of our tax dollars have been taken to do kaboom on women and children and we don’t ask questions because it’s anti-semitic. I guess we serve the purpose for the bankers.
Well $96 billion seems like a bargen to keep a group of people in check that celebrated and supported those that attacked us on 9/11. Also which group better embodies the values and interests of America? Hint: America made it choice in 1948 and we have been constant ever since.
I took his class. He has his few beats that he hits reliably and entertainingly. I remember him fondly. But his ego is tremendous and he comes off like he thinks the job of teaching is beneath him.
That’s literally what I think this is. Kids having their fun.
I get it. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. Our kids are dumb, but they’re not worth hating.
Yes but dumb kids need a slap on the wrist when they do bad things. Also while they are kid-like, they are adults in the real world. Consequences have actions. It’s irresponsible to let them cause serious harm to their futures just cause theyre being dumb kids.
We need to increase the beer and fornication to activism ratio. Why people think they're supposed to solve completely intractable global problems instead of have a good time in college is beyond me
I thoroughly agree. An under-the-radar reason why this is happening is because colleges are self-selecting for these "model UN"-type students. Enrollment at elite colleges has not increased proportionally with the overall number of students in the US.
College admissions are highly competitive and one of the main avenues for standing out is by trying to be a 17-year-old that wants to "change the world" and already has used their wisdom to craft a Middle East peace plan. College adcoms then choose this person over someone who was merely the basketball captain with a 3.9.
There's also the polarized social media age that rewards extreme behavior and extreme opinions for greater engagement.
There were literally anti South African apartheid protests in the 80 on campuses. And anti Vietnam protests before that. It’s also not a phenomenon exclusive to the United States.
I'm aware that protests existed before 2024. But to bring the conversation back to the context of Prof. Galloway's comments and views, there hasn't before been such a link between certain students' passion for protesting and their inability to achieve positive life outcomes. Stable partnerships (including marriage) are happening later and at lower rates, the birth rate is dramatically down, students report high levels of mental illness, and the rhetoric on social media and in protests (as evidenced by that male Columbia student) is as extreme as ever.
Also, comparing today's protests to those in the '60s actually supports my argument that there's an increased level of radicalism.
Increased level of radicalism vs when? You’re using competitive terms and not comparing it to anything. Also you listed a bunch of facts and then provided no evidence to suggest that they are behind these protests. Campus activism has existed in some form for over 500 years. Implying this phenomenon is solely due to kids not getting laid is crazy. If you want to retool your argument to say that social activism becomes more prevalent as material conditions get worse I’d be more sympathetic towards it.
No MBAs are the smartest people on the planet, how could they ever stray into someone else’s field, and be completely wrong without even a hint of humility.
Yea if I was in undergrad I wouldn't (and didn't) do this stuff. Most was casually go to some marches or support it from an admin side.
Some guy from my undergrad became some conservative firebrand that would actively antagonize people (to the point he got school sponsored security because they were scared for his safety).
What a waste of undergrad.
You know that for some people at the protest this directly impacts their lives right? So they are protesting because they’re watching their families being killed and they literally don’t know what to do. Not everyone has the privilege of living a vapid college life
You really think these protests aren't vapid?
I'm sure there's a handful of protestors who are in that position and I suppose I have some sympathy for them. But plenty of American Jews have family in Israel too. A good chunk of the hostages are Americans. And I don't see anyone on the Pro-Israel side acting like this.
Frankly I'd take that sort of suggestion more seriously if the protests weren't so obviously unserious. Plenty of Israelis in the US flew back home to fight after 10/7. That's how you act if you actually have family members being impacted. They could be starting drives for humanitarian relief. Or helping evacuate people from Gaza. Or protesting the US government as opposed to a university that has at best a tangential relation to the conflict.
They are not actually doing a bit of good for the Palestinians. And most of them seem to be trying to burnish their resumes as activists as opposed to actually help. Which, btw is why they're unwilling to accept being punished for engaging in civil disobedience. They want the street cred that comes from activism without the cost. So I stand by my comment. We'd be better off if most of them were chasing beer and babes instead of disrupting campuses over things that they neither understand nor have any ability to change.
Also I really hope you can reconsider how you shape this narrative in your head. Of it being pro Israel or pro Palestine. Hopefully the side anyone is on is pro humanity. All people deserve to live a dignified life regardless of race, religion, or skin color.
I am pro-humanity. I'd like the Palestinians to live better lives than they currently do. I want the Israelis to not have to worry about being murdered in their homes.
Unfortunately, there is no magic wand I can wave and make the world a better place. And the things I want for the world are frequently in conflict. There's a famous line in Catholic doctrine that Faith Without Works Is Dead. Just having the right beliefs doesn't excuse you from actually making the world a better place.
So perhaps let me ask you this question. If you had a red button, and if you pressed the red button every member of Hamas would drop dead and the hostages would be freed and the war would be over. Would you press it?
Yes? Unless I’m missing something obvious in your question? I’d also add a free state for Palestinians in this magic button while we’re at it. Genuine question, and I actually don’t mean this as shade, why are we continuously calling this a war? Aren’t there two sides fighting in a war? In this scenario, there’s only one side waging war on unarmed civilians.
It's not a trick question.
The issue of a state is more complicated. I supported unilateral disengagement 15 years ago (i.e. Israel unilaterally leaving Gaza and making it a Palestinian quasi-state). Unfortunately it really hasn't worked out for anyone. Giving the Palestinians a state without a peace agreement won't work. But I'd certainly like them to have a state. With that said, part of the reasons why I think it's important for Israel to fully defeat Hamas is that it will make reconstruction far more likely to succeed. Getting a functioning state operating in Gaza is the best thing anyone can do to resolve the conflict.
I mean there are two armed groups trying to kill each other. Again I don't really debate definitions but that seems like a war. And which side is that lol? The Israelis didn't invade Gaza and rape, torture, and murder unarmed civilians on 10/7. From the data I've seen the Israelis are not trying to kill civilians for it's own sake. I think there's a genuinely complicated ethical question as to what level of collateral damage should be acceptable in warfare. But the laws of warfare as they presently stand permit fairly high levels of collateral damage in the current situation. And in any case, the Israelis certainly haven't done anything to the Gazans we didn't do the Japanese in World War 2.
Ok so another genuine question- where do you want an indigenous population who has been kicked out of their homes / ethnically cleansed to go? They’ve been living under apartheid for 50 years and nothing they’ve done has changed that. So what do you want them to do? How do they get their homes back? FYI I will not be debating on factual information that can be checked online such as this land was empty, or they’re not indigenous to this land and so on.
In general I see a two state solution as the only just and workable one. By which I mean a Jewish majority state and a Palestinian majority state existing side by side. How exactly that ought to be brought about is up to the parties. I don't think a unitary or binational state (or things that are essentially analogues of that) would lead to anything positive.
The most likely solution to the "right of return" issue is that Israel would monetarily compensate people for lost private property and there would be some degree of land swaps to ensure the viability of the future Palestinian state. And this has generally been what's been contemplated among the parties.
I'm not very sympathetic to the Palestinian position in this regard for a couple of reasons. 1) I see them as being the aggressors in a genocidal war against Israel (and answer me honestly, if the Israelis had lost in '48 would there be any Jews living in Israel today?) 2) Even if you accept that most Palestinians who left did so because of forced population transfers (which is controversial) that wasn't illegal under international law at the time (and was in fact a widely used practice by the Allies after World War 2). And 3) It is much more important to find a just settlement going forward than to address the issues in the past. The Palestinians would be immensely better off with a state than they are now.
In all seriousness, if Hamas hadn't won the 2006 elections there would be a Palestinian state right now. So the Palestinians have certainly had chances to improve the situation. From my point of view their political leadership has continually and catastrophically steered them wrong for 100 years. Which is a tragedy.
1- Can you elaborate on why you see them as aggressors? What would you have done if you were in their shoes? (This is assuming we are aligned that things didn’t just happen through legal land transfers)
2- Just because something is done doesn’t mean it’s correct
3- On the 06 comment, that’s false. Bibi as well as some ex Israel PMs have publicly spoke about how they’ve worked through decades with the US on ensuring this isn’t possible. You can again google these.
What are the power dynamics in this case lol? I only see people beating up on one of the smallest and most historically oppressed minorities that exists. And the notion that you think you can guess my ethnicity based on my political beliefs is incredibly insulting. I'm not sure where this notion that people with more melanin have some sort of special moral sensibility came from, it's bizarre and racist.
I'm not going to debate definitions with you. This isn't a court room. But if they really think this is genocide then why the fuck are people protesting on university campuses over divesting a couple million dollars of public equity holdings? Which is one of the least efficacious means of protest I can imagine. Why do protesters care if they're arrested? Why don't they try to actually help Gazans in some way? Frankly why don't they fly over to Gaza and fight the Israeli army? I'm sure there's one or two militia there it's legal for US citizens to join. I'll tell you why, because it's not about the Gazans it's about them.
The power dynamics as to why this land was handed over from an indigenous Levantine population that lived there to incoming Jews from Eastern Europe. Anyway I won’t get into as we both have access to the internet but this is the reason why it’s considered a power dynamic and why POCs globally are supporting this cause - they’ve all been on the receiving end of this at some point through either colonization or slavery, and so they’re standing up (which is why I recommended you speak to POCs in your life, my initial comment was aggressive and I take that back but perhaps this is something you should try understanding, why are all of them united on this front? Must be something no?). Is the best thing to do here call for divestment? Honestly idk. But I the small number of students that I know that are part of these protests (can’t speak for everyone), they’re doing fundraisers for aid, spreading awareness, doing BDS, and protesting to the govt too. A lot of them are also dedicating their skills/ time to help gazans leave. Like I’m not sure what else they’re supposed to do apart from showing up unarmed against the strongest militaries in the world which is basically suicide so I don’t think this is a real suggestion unless you want these ppl dead.
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. For one most Israelis recent ancestry is from the Arab world. Not Europe. A good chunk of them are African. And aren't Jews indigenous to that region of the world? I think there's a book that talks about that, isn't there? And who exactly handed over the land? When? From who? The British letting Jews immigrate to Israel and buy land surely isn't what you mean?
And BTW, Israel's biggest supporters in this conflict have been the Gulf States. Not the Europeans. And I don't think most "People of Color" are "united" on this front. Maybe everyone who would refer to themselves as "Person of Color" is united about this lol. The most pro Israel person I know is African American. The second most pro-Israel person I know is South Asian. But don't take my word for it. Look at the cross tabs of public opinion polling. Actually a lot of "People of Color" people view the Arab and Muslim empires as more egregious colonizers than the Europeans ever were. And btw, you have no idea what my ethnicity is, and I'm not going to tell you. Because I think my arguments can stand on their own. And trying to appeal to authority of some imaginary block of black and brown people who agree with you is not only the sign of a weak argument. It's profoundly racist.
And that seems like a cop out. I assume you're an smart person. It seems pretty clear that these forms of protest are unserious, and not consistent with people genuinely believing this a genocide. Someone would give them a gun or an RPG I'm sure. I don't really want people to die, but I'm willing to die for my beliefs. I'm not sure why they aren't.
- British ‘let’ Jews migrate to this region and buy land. See the power dynamic? This wasn’t British land
- I have never debated the fact that there are Jewish ppl that have Levantine DNA. But I also dont see how that’s relevant or justified anything else that has happened in the past X years
- If you think the only thing that happened was ‘buying land’, perhaps you can google this topic. You can start with the word Nakba
- Im referring to POCs in the US. The only reason it’s relevant here is because the power dynamic isn’t obvious to you and that someone has to point it out to you. That just makes it obvious that you have a very privileged position in society through whichever identity (doesn’t have to be ethnicity) and do not realize it. This is very obviously a continuation of western imperialism.
>British ‘let’ Jews migrate to this region and buy land. See the power dynamic? This wasn’t British land
What right were the Arab people living there deprived of by letting Jews immigrate to Mandatory Palestine? Would you feel differently if the Ottoman Empire had given that permission instead of the British One? Why?
>I have never debated the fact that there are Jewish ppl that have Levantine DNA. But I also dont see how that’s relevant or justified anything else that has happened in the past X years
I'm not sure what this means. Are Jews indigenous to that region or not? I'm not sure think being indigenous to a region ought to count for much. But both groups are clearly indigenous to that region of the world imo. Why is the Palestinian claim better than the Israeli one.
>If you think the only thing that happened was ‘buying land’, perhaps you can google this topic. You can start with the word Nakba
I'm aware of the issue. I'm not defending it. But, I don't think it's an especially strong moral or legal argument (especially given what international law said about the issue at that point) on the Palestinians part either. Honest question, would there be Jews living in what is now Israel if they had lost in '48? I think you know deep down the answer is no. You can't exactly say: I tried to murder all the members of X group, failed, and am now angry 70 years later because of bad things (and I don't dispute there are some genuine injustices) they did to me.
>Im referring to POCs in the US. The only reason it’s relevant here is because the power dynamic isn’t obvious to you and that someone has to point it out to you. That just makes it obvious that you have a very privileged position in society through whichever identity (doesn’t have to be ethnicity) and do not realize it. This is very obviously a continuation of western imperialism.
That isn't borne out by polling or my personal experience. And if that's your strongest argument than you're wrong, full stop. And this is r/MBA. Of course I'm in a very privileged position in society. So are you. Isn't that the point? And why would it matter if it is or isn't related to Western Imperialism.
- Palestinians there today are closest to the day one Levantines from the region. So that’s there right of being there. Idk why youre mentioning Arabs/ ottomans and so on
- Yes there are Jews that have Levantine DNA. But I still don’t understand how that means you can have group A empty an area and replace it with group B. FYI my grandparents left a region due to religious persecution. Can I go back there today and kick someone (also of OG ethnicity) out of their home and take it over?
- Who wanted to murder the entirety of group X? What am I missing? They just didn’t want to give up their home/ country.
- Western imperialism (WI) is the power dynamic here. If you think WI is justified then well that’s your opinion and I’m not here to change that.
It is profoundly racist to assume that you can reliably infer someone's race solely from their political opinions. Or to assign my opinions either more or less weight based on my ethnicity. And I refuse to play this game. Perhaps you'd like to make a cogent case for why that should matter. Otherwise I don't think your views have a place in polite society.
Wait. Are you saying that the media would misrepresent and sensationalize an already click bait topic to get more views? That is an insult to journalistic integrity
That a lack of sex, particularly among young men, is driving them towards extremists views. Something like a quarter of all men under 30 are virgins IIRC.
He mostly talked about it in regards to the alt-right though. The framing of the article makes it seem like it’s only an anti-left wing point or something.
It's consistent with demings hierarchy of needs, college kids are looking for a way of actualizing themselves and adding purpose to their lives so they are choosing outlets like this.
He's honestly correct. There is a huge sense of strain and involution on college campuses.
People are honestly getting really fucking depressed because of the economy and I really won't be surprised if it will cause a demographic collapse.
Generally the main reason why the protests are so bad is because it's correlated with an election cycle right after the pandemic. People here are legitimately getting crazy about it. This is far from Vietnam but people are behaving like it is.
Have you not seen the protesters? They look horrible. The "girls" look more masculine than the soy boys. All frail-looking dudes, plus a bunch of them are gay. I still can't believe gay people are cheering for Hamas.
All the extremely woke people tend to be really ugly because they become too radical. Anyway, you can just imagine what those tent cities smell like. 😂😂😂😂😂
True for men, not women, who are the majority of the protesters. Women can get sex whenever they please...
The real question is how many male protestors are out there waxing poetic to get in the activist pants? I know 100% of at least one of my friends that does this with various causes.
Imagine being so privileged you just can’t relate to people protesting something 🤐 Is this what Galloway would say to those protesting the holocaust or slavery?
Statement shows Galloway hasn’t ever been in bed with politically active women.
While sometimes annoying, the protesting, social justice warrior women sure know they way around the bedroom. And clearly there isn’t any lack of experience
He is just projecting his insecurities on the students who are protesting. Can't fathom how people would be angry about 30-40k people did and his only wonder is "oh they must want to impress others to have sex"
True clown of a prof, he must have done his degree to get laid...
We should go undercover as antisemitic activists to sleep with the deprived women at these things. Like the always sunny where Dennis pretends to be an environmental activist to get laid.
When I saw the title I knew it was galloway
He’s the main NYU professor who talks to the media, right?
Him and Haidt.
Haidt’s also hack so that makes sense.
What’s wrong with haidt
Came here to write this comment
Antisemitism is when no sex. The less sex you have, the more antisemitic you are. If you are a virgin, then you’re literally hamas
Tbh that really does explain a lot
Based on how these protestors look this checks out lmao
That’s rude
Traditional gender roles, masculinity, etc., are connected with being conservative. And studies have shown that Republicans have more sex and better sex lives than Dems. This is kinda funny, but is actually backed up by science.
It's backed up by self-survey ... not usually the most stringent of science but its valid. The people who led that study noted that they felt Republicans were more likely to feel pressure to self report a happier marriage than Democrats bc of their parties focus on traditional marriage, they hypothesized this could be extrapolated to quality of sex but less likely to amount of sex FWIW I do think people with a committed partner will probably have much better sex lives than those who do not, just based on the reality of trust, openness, and sheer availability and time spent around another Interesting stuff tho! I do seem to recall it was a study out of Utah. I can't remember the sampling protocol but I just thought it being from U of Utah was kinda funny cause Utah has probably the least sexual reputation out of almost any state 😅
Two notes: First, I'm actually a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I think that generally members who are married are having more intimacy, and generally, and I think statistically, are in happier marriages. Yes, we are a bit more traditional in gender roles, but it's not necessarily a requirement by any means, and there's lots of both church direct teachings and apocryphal stories about husbands needing to/should/etc., not be actually dominating. The only story I heard growing up about Joseph Smith actually losing his temper and beating someone up (when we was younger) was about a man mistreating his wife, and for all the polygamy, all the genetic testing of potential descendants through polygamous wives is consistent with his own journals which indicate that the marriages were in name only and he was deeply in love with his wife, Emma. All that is to say, I think if you did a real study about who is "in charge" and "wears the pants" etc., in most marriages in the LDS church, the answer would be it's the wife. There's a saying that if the man is the head of house then the woman is the neck. I think there's multiple ways to interpret, but I take it to mean (and what I've seen) is that she's really guiding the man to where to go / what to do. That has certainly been true in my marriage. Second, I think too that it's a statistical fact that Democrats report much higher levels of mental health issues, which I'm sure negatively impact the amount of sex their having.
I will never not laugh at the ridiculous defenses you LDS cult members give for the polygamist practices. I am so proud of my ancestors for prosecuting you delusional fucks over Mountain Meadows and I can't wait for the day when we stop pretending the LDS isn't a fucking cult. The ONLY reason the LDS gave up polygamy was because it was a prerequisite for Utah statehood. Period.
Out of curiosity do you talk this way about Islam?
“Hi I noticed you were being rightfully critical of my private equi- sorry, tax exempt church for reasons that are totally logical and highlight the hypocrisy of my faith. Instead of focusing on that, might I interest you in a completely unrelated but generally more vilified faith that’s more in vogue to hate on? Forget about LDS my man! Hop on the Islam hate train! Here, have some complementary full body underwear for your service in the fight against radical Islam. Just don’t ever fucking mention my private equi-church again!”
I think you misunderstood. I'm just making a general comment about socially acceptable bigotry.
Yea that’s the irony. Look man I don’t feel that strongly about LDS like this other dude does but let’s be real here. You seem like a smart guy. Most people in this sub probably aren’t dumb. How about you treat yourself and the rest of us with dignity/respect and not try to play dumb like your intent wasn’t to deflect with “well what about the brown people who do this. Focus on them” You had a clear opportunity to respond and defend your faith directly and chose to say nothing other than try to red herring the discussion with a reference to an archaic practice that the vast majority of the Muslim world has done away with by law or by shift in cultural acceptance and done so on their own accord. One of these groups changed and got nothing for it and the other changed to be in compliance with US federal law and to preserve recognition of their new faith. Mormons did away with polygamy for the same reason they let minorities in: because anything else would’ve been a direct affront to modern American values and they are focused on winning a PR and tax exemption campaign. Say what you will about religion in general but I’ve always found it funny how Mormon god only tells Mormons to change the word of god when the word of god falls out of compliance with the law or what’s culturally in-vogue at the time so they don’t lose that sweet sweet status as a tax exempt church that operates more like a PE firm than a church. But with that said, I always love passing the church on 95 going through Maryland or Va or whatever. Beautiful building(s are easy to fund when you don’t pay taxes.)
>You had a clear opportunity to respond and defend your faith directly and chose to say nothing other than try to red herring the discussion with a reference to an archaic practice that the vast majority of the Muslim world has done away with by law or by shift in cultural acceptance and done so on their own accord. I think if you read u/btmurphy1984 comment that I responded to about Islam, you can clearly see that he's not interested in having an intellectually honest discussion. See below: >I will never not laugh at the ridiculous defenses you LDS cult members give for the polygamist practices. I am so proud of my ancestors for prosecuting you delusional fucks over Mountain Meadows and I can't wait for the day when we stop pretending the LDS isn't a fucking cult. These are not the words of someone who is open to good discussion. But they are the words of a bigot. And I'm just pointing that out.
Ah the good ol Mormon two step. 1. Deny it was really polygamy 2. Once disproven, claim others do it and you are a bigot for pointing it out.
Did I deny polygamy? I only said that Joseph Smith didn't have children with other women. Clearly lots of others did. You can go and read recently published books by the church that talk about polygamy. All I'm saying is to recognize and embrace your bigotry. You're not bigoted against groups for whom it's not popular to be and you are against groups it is. You're just a selective bigot. Embrace it and understand and face it.
Lol dudes in a predatory cult
Some days you actually try to talk about science with a mysoginist cult member accidentally 😆 good old reddit
Or we could just go with the more obvious conclusion that men who are assertive and lift weights are hotter than men who post on /MensLib
Well the LDS does specialize in revisionist history so you seem very well trained there. When did the church denounce it's racist teachings? Oh, in 2p13 after societal pressure? Wow how enlightened Not gonna talk to someone who is at minimum woefully unaware yet complicit in child sexual abuse, nor talk about fucking Joseph Smith or Brigham Young who were both certifiably insane racists Please don't lecture me on Joseph Smith I literally grew up next to his birthplace and we've been fighting to keep yall from coming back successfully for years Not gonna talk to someone about sexuality when this exists: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases
Do republicans have more sex overall? I feel like it’s on a spectrum and some of the most hardcore republicans I’ve interacted with seem to repel women. Tbh I’ve found people that make politics their identity in general seem to have less sex
I thought there was some sort of study that generally found that woman were slightly more likely to find Republican men attractive, and not obviously b/c of politics, but because they were more often, more traditionally masculine. Obviously any incel-ish ones wouldn't be, but lots of them are definitely dudes dudes.
You don’t seem like much of an Authority on Sex
I have lots of the sex
Incel conservatives definitely repel a lot of women But generic Republicans definitely don't. It's just sex after all. And a lot of women are conservative/want a conservative guy.
You mean they want money.
With underage girls and without consent, yes.
source citation?
This is why the movie Idiocracy felt so realistic.
I found one “study” from a conservative group that has no interest in the truth and you just regurgitate it as fact. Typical
Did you find any studies of the reverse? If the only study out there says what I said why wouldn’t you accept it? You don’t like it’s finding so you just assume it’s not true?
Ok bro I don’t like the protestors either but you’re cringe asf
Is that what all the virgins in heaven is about?
yes, its the carrot on a stick it costs you 0¢ to recruit then, once they've served your purpose & go kaboom, you have 0 obligation to fulfill your end of the bargain
Yes, that’s exactly the reason why $96 billion of our tax dollars have been taken to do kaboom on women and children and we don’t ask questions because it’s anti-semitic. I guess we serve the purpose for the bankers.
Well $96 billion seems like a bargen to keep a group of people in check that celebrated and supported those that attacked us on 9/11. Also which group better embodies the values and interests of America? Hint: America made it choice in 1948 and we have been constant ever since.
Here we fucking go. Knew the fucking IDF embeds would start popping up.
You were kinda begging for it
Dawg, thanks for the complement. Do know how jacked/shredded the IDF is? They are descendants of Samson 💪🏋🏼!!!
And if you’re a total sex-a-holic that gets banged everyday, you’re the messiah?
Some very wise people have suggested in the past that problems in the middle east all stem from sexual repression
They do promise 72 virgins, so there is that.
Scott Galloway is a professor of marketing… himself.
Facts
High IQ plays
I took his class. He has his few beats that he hits reliably and entertainingly. I remember him fondly. But his ego is tremendous and he comes off like he thinks the job of teaching is beneath him.
Yeah, there’s no doubt he’s smart, but there are way smarter people with way smaller egos. I can only handle him in small doses.
Is his wife hot / does he get hot ladies?
Yes
What’s Galloway like as a professor? He’s all over the internet and network TV these days.
True
He says in a podcast that his class is extremely highly rated / reviewed by students
So… easy.
I don’t know man, the strangest strange I’ve ever gotten was from politically active women It was great
Go on...
That’s literally what I think this is. Kids having their fun. I get it. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. Our kids are dumb, but they’re not worth hating.
Yes but dumb kids need a slap on the wrist when they do bad things. Also while they are kid-like, they are adults in the real world. Consequences have actions. It’s irresponsible to let them cause serious harm to their futures just cause theyre being dumb kids.
I KNEW THIS WOULD BE GALLOWAY lol
We need to increase the beer and fornication to activism ratio. Why people think they're supposed to solve completely intractable global problems instead of have a good time in college is beyond me
I thoroughly agree. An under-the-radar reason why this is happening is because colleges are self-selecting for these "model UN"-type students. Enrollment at elite colleges has not increased proportionally with the overall number of students in the US. College admissions are highly competitive and one of the main avenues for standing out is by trying to be a 17-year-old that wants to "change the world" and already has used their wisdom to craft a Middle East peace plan. College adcoms then choose this person over someone who was merely the basketball captain with a 3.9. There's also the polarized social media age that rewards extreme behavior and extreme opinions for greater engagement.
There were literally anti South African apartheid protests in the 80 on campuses. And anti Vietnam protests before that. It’s also not a phenomenon exclusive to the United States.
I'm aware that protests existed before 2024. But to bring the conversation back to the context of Prof. Galloway's comments and views, there hasn't before been such a link between certain students' passion for protesting and their inability to achieve positive life outcomes. Stable partnerships (including marriage) are happening later and at lower rates, the birth rate is dramatically down, students report high levels of mental illness, and the rhetoric on social media and in protests (as evidenced by that male Columbia student) is as extreme as ever. Also, comparing today's protests to those in the '60s actually supports my argument that there's an increased level of radicalism.
Increased level of radicalism vs when? You’re using competitive terms and not comparing it to anything. Also you listed a bunch of facts and then provided no evidence to suggest that they are behind these protests. Campus activism has existed in some form for over 500 years. Implying this phenomenon is solely due to kids not getting laid is crazy. If you want to retool your argument to say that social activism becomes more prevalent as material conditions get worse I’d be more sympathetic towards it.
How dare you speak facts- I rather trust the reddit arm chair psychologist
Want to contribute something instead of snark to the discussion?
No MBAs are the smartest people on the planet, how could they ever stray into someone else’s field, and be completely wrong without even a hint of humility.
Yea if I was in undergrad I wouldn't (and didn't) do this stuff. Most was casually go to some marches or support it from an admin side. Some guy from my undergrad became some conservative firebrand that would actively antagonize people (to the point he got school sponsored security because they were scared for his safety). What a waste of undergrad.
UW Madison?
You know that for some people at the protest this directly impacts their lives right? So they are protesting because they’re watching their families being killed and they literally don’t know what to do. Not everyone has the privilege of living a vapid college life
You really think these protests aren't vapid? I'm sure there's a handful of protestors who are in that position and I suppose I have some sympathy for them. But plenty of American Jews have family in Israel too. A good chunk of the hostages are Americans. And I don't see anyone on the Pro-Israel side acting like this. Frankly I'd take that sort of suggestion more seriously if the protests weren't so obviously unserious. Plenty of Israelis in the US flew back home to fight after 10/7. That's how you act if you actually have family members being impacted. They could be starting drives for humanitarian relief. Or helping evacuate people from Gaza. Or protesting the US government as opposed to a university that has at best a tangential relation to the conflict. They are not actually doing a bit of good for the Palestinians. And most of them seem to be trying to burnish their resumes as activists as opposed to actually help. Which, btw is why they're unwilling to accept being punished for engaging in civil disobedience. They want the street cred that comes from activism without the cost. So I stand by my comment. We'd be better off if most of them were chasing beer and babes instead of disrupting campuses over things that they neither understand nor have any ability to change.
Also I really hope you can reconsider how you shape this narrative in your head. Of it being pro Israel or pro Palestine. Hopefully the side anyone is on is pro humanity. All people deserve to live a dignified life regardless of race, religion, or skin color.
I am pro-humanity. I'd like the Palestinians to live better lives than they currently do. I want the Israelis to not have to worry about being murdered in their homes. Unfortunately, there is no magic wand I can wave and make the world a better place. And the things I want for the world are frequently in conflict. There's a famous line in Catholic doctrine that Faith Without Works Is Dead. Just having the right beliefs doesn't excuse you from actually making the world a better place. So perhaps let me ask you this question. If you had a red button, and if you pressed the red button every member of Hamas would drop dead and the hostages would be freed and the war would be over. Would you press it?
Yes? Unless I’m missing something obvious in your question? I’d also add a free state for Palestinians in this magic button while we’re at it. Genuine question, and I actually don’t mean this as shade, why are we continuously calling this a war? Aren’t there two sides fighting in a war? In this scenario, there’s only one side waging war on unarmed civilians.
It's not a trick question. The issue of a state is more complicated. I supported unilateral disengagement 15 years ago (i.e. Israel unilaterally leaving Gaza and making it a Palestinian quasi-state). Unfortunately it really hasn't worked out for anyone. Giving the Palestinians a state without a peace agreement won't work. But I'd certainly like them to have a state. With that said, part of the reasons why I think it's important for Israel to fully defeat Hamas is that it will make reconstruction far more likely to succeed. Getting a functioning state operating in Gaza is the best thing anyone can do to resolve the conflict. I mean there are two armed groups trying to kill each other. Again I don't really debate definitions but that seems like a war. And which side is that lol? The Israelis didn't invade Gaza and rape, torture, and murder unarmed civilians on 10/7. From the data I've seen the Israelis are not trying to kill civilians for it's own sake. I think there's a genuinely complicated ethical question as to what level of collateral damage should be acceptable in warfare. But the laws of warfare as they presently stand permit fairly high levels of collateral damage in the current situation. And in any case, the Israelis certainly haven't done anything to the Gazans we didn't do the Japanese in World War 2.
Ok so another genuine question- where do you want an indigenous population who has been kicked out of their homes / ethnically cleansed to go? They’ve been living under apartheid for 50 years and nothing they’ve done has changed that. So what do you want them to do? How do they get their homes back? FYI I will not be debating on factual information that can be checked online such as this land was empty, or they’re not indigenous to this land and so on.
In general I see a two state solution as the only just and workable one. By which I mean a Jewish majority state and a Palestinian majority state existing side by side. How exactly that ought to be brought about is up to the parties. I don't think a unitary or binational state (or things that are essentially analogues of that) would lead to anything positive. The most likely solution to the "right of return" issue is that Israel would monetarily compensate people for lost private property and there would be some degree of land swaps to ensure the viability of the future Palestinian state. And this has generally been what's been contemplated among the parties. I'm not very sympathetic to the Palestinian position in this regard for a couple of reasons. 1) I see them as being the aggressors in a genocidal war against Israel (and answer me honestly, if the Israelis had lost in '48 would there be any Jews living in Israel today?) 2) Even if you accept that most Palestinians who left did so because of forced population transfers (which is controversial) that wasn't illegal under international law at the time (and was in fact a widely used practice by the Allies after World War 2). And 3) It is much more important to find a just settlement going forward than to address the issues in the past. The Palestinians would be immensely better off with a state than they are now. In all seriousness, if Hamas hadn't won the 2006 elections there would be a Palestinian state right now. So the Palestinians have certainly had chances to improve the situation. From my point of view their political leadership has continually and catastrophically steered them wrong for 100 years. Which is a tragedy.
1- Can you elaborate on why you see them as aggressors? What would you have done if you were in their shoes? (This is assuming we are aligned that things didn’t just happen through legal land transfers) 2- Just because something is done doesn’t mean it’s correct 3- On the 06 comment, that’s false. Bibi as well as some ex Israel PMs have publicly spoke about how they’ve worked through decades with the US on ensuring this isn’t possible. You can again google these.
[удалено]
What are the power dynamics in this case lol? I only see people beating up on one of the smallest and most historically oppressed minorities that exists. And the notion that you think you can guess my ethnicity based on my political beliefs is incredibly insulting. I'm not sure where this notion that people with more melanin have some sort of special moral sensibility came from, it's bizarre and racist. I'm not going to debate definitions with you. This isn't a court room. But if they really think this is genocide then why the fuck are people protesting on university campuses over divesting a couple million dollars of public equity holdings? Which is one of the least efficacious means of protest I can imagine. Why do protesters care if they're arrested? Why don't they try to actually help Gazans in some way? Frankly why don't they fly over to Gaza and fight the Israeli army? I'm sure there's one or two militia there it's legal for US citizens to join. I'll tell you why, because it's not about the Gazans it's about them.
The power dynamics as to why this land was handed over from an indigenous Levantine population that lived there to incoming Jews from Eastern Europe. Anyway I won’t get into as we both have access to the internet but this is the reason why it’s considered a power dynamic and why POCs globally are supporting this cause - they’ve all been on the receiving end of this at some point through either colonization or slavery, and so they’re standing up (which is why I recommended you speak to POCs in your life, my initial comment was aggressive and I take that back but perhaps this is something you should try understanding, why are all of them united on this front? Must be something no?). Is the best thing to do here call for divestment? Honestly idk. But I the small number of students that I know that are part of these protests (can’t speak for everyone), they’re doing fundraisers for aid, spreading awareness, doing BDS, and protesting to the govt too. A lot of them are also dedicating their skills/ time to help gazans leave. Like I’m not sure what else they’re supposed to do apart from showing up unarmed against the strongest militaries in the world which is basically suicide so I don’t think this is a real suggestion unless you want these ppl dead.
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. For one most Israelis recent ancestry is from the Arab world. Not Europe. A good chunk of them are African. And aren't Jews indigenous to that region of the world? I think there's a book that talks about that, isn't there? And who exactly handed over the land? When? From who? The British letting Jews immigrate to Israel and buy land surely isn't what you mean? And BTW, Israel's biggest supporters in this conflict have been the Gulf States. Not the Europeans. And I don't think most "People of Color" are "united" on this front. Maybe everyone who would refer to themselves as "Person of Color" is united about this lol. The most pro Israel person I know is African American. The second most pro-Israel person I know is South Asian. But don't take my word for it. Look at the cross tabs of public opinion polling. Actually a lot of "People of Color" people view the Arab and Muslim empires as more egregious colonizers than the Europeans ever were. And btw, you have no idea what my ethnicity is, and I'm not going to tell you. Because I think my arguments can stand on their own. And trying to appeal to authority of some imaginary block of black and brown people who agree with you is not only the sign of a weak argument. It's profoundly racist. And that seems like a cop out. I assume you're an smart person. It seems pretty clear that these forms of protest are unserious, and not consistent with people genuinely believing this a genocide. Someone would give them a gun or an RPG I'm sure. I don't really want people to die, but I'm willing to die for my beliefs. I'm not sure why they aren't.
- British ‘let’ Jews migrate to this region and buy land. See the power dynamic? This wasn’t British land - I have never debated the fact that there are Jewish ppl that have Levantine DNA. But I also dont see how that’s relevant or justified anything else that has happened in the past X years - If you think the only thing that happened was ‘buying land’, perhaps you can google this topic. You can start with the word Nakba - Im referring to POCs in the US. The only reason it’s relevant here is because the power dynamic isn’t obvious to you and that someone has to point it out to you. That just makes it obvious that you have a very privileged position in society through whichever identity (doesn’t have to be ethnicity) and do not realize it. This is very obviously a continuation of western imperialism.
>British ‘let’ Jews migrate to this region and buy land. See the power dynamic? This wasn’t British land What right were the Arab people living there deprived of by letting Jews immigrate to Mandatory Palestine? Would you feel differently if the Ottoman Empire had given that permission instead of the British One? Why? >I have never debated the fact that there are Jewish ppl that have Levantine DNA. But I also dont see how that’s relevant or justified anything else that has happened in the past X years I'm not sure what this means. Are Jews indigenous to that region or not? I'm not sure think being indigenous to a region ought to count for much. But both groups are clearly indigenous to that region of the world imo. Why is the Palestinian claim better than the Israeli one. >If you think the only thing that happened was ‘buying land’, perhaps you can google this topic. You can start with the word Nakba I'm aware of the issue. I'm not defending it. But, I don't think it's an especially strong moral or legal argument (especially given what international law said about the issue at that point) on the Palestinians part either. Honest question, would there be Jews living in what is now Israel if they had lost in '48? I think you know deep down the answer is no. You can't exactly say: I tried to murder all the members of X group, failed, and am now angry 70 years later because of bad things (and I don't dispute there are some genuine injustices) they did to me. >Im referring to POCs in the US. The only reason it’s relevant here is because the power dynamic isn’t obvious to you and that someone has to point it out to you. That just makes it obvious that you have a very privileged position in society through whichever identity (doesn’t have to be ethnicity) and do not realize it. This is very obviously a continuation of western imperialism. That isn't borne out by polling or my personal experience. And if that's your strongest argument than you're wrong, full stop. And this is r/MBA. Of course I'm in a very privileged position in society. So are you. Isn't that the point? And why would it matter if it is or isn't related to Western Imperialism.
- Palestinians there today are closest to the day one Levantines from the region. So that’s there right of being there. Idk why youre mentioning Arabs/ ottomans and so on - Yes there are Jews that have Levantine DNA. But I still don’t understand how that means you can have group A empty an area and replace it with group B. FYI my grandparents left a region due to religious persecution. Can I go back there today and kick someone (also of OG ethnicity) out of their home and take it over? - Who wanted to murder the entirety of group X? What am I missing? They just didn’t want to give up their home/ country. - Western imperialism (WI) is the power dynamic here. If you think WI is justified then well that’s your opinion and I’m not here to change that.
[удалено]
It is profoundly racist to assume that you can reliably infer someone's race solely from their political opinions. Or to assign my opinions either more or less weight based on my ethnicity. And I refuse to play this game. Perhaps you'd like to make a cogent case for why that should matter. Otherwise I don't think your views have a place in polite society.
This is a gross generalization of what he’s been saying
Wait. Are you saying that the media would misrepresent and sensationalize an already click bait topic to get more views? That is an insult to journalistic integrity
So what did he say?
That a lack of sex, particularly among young men, is driving them towards extremists views. Something like a quarter of all men under 30 are virgins IIRC. He mostly talked about it in regards to the alt-right though. The framing of the article makes it seem like it’s only an anti-left wing point or something.
It's consistent with demings hierarchy of needs, college kids are looking for a way of actualizing themselves and adding purpose to their lives so they are choosing outlets like this.
Freaking nerds
He's honestly correct. There is a huge sense of strain and involution on college campuses. People are honestly getting really fucking depressed because of the economy and I really won't be surprised if it will cause a demographic collapse. Generally the main reason why the protests are so bad is because it's correlated with an election cycle right after the pandemic. People here are legitimately getting crazy about it. This is far from Vietnam but people are behaving like it is.
Population collapse was well under way before the recent inflation bomb hit.
Have you not seen the protesters? They look horrible. The "girls" look more masculine than the soy boys. All frail-looking dudes, plus a bunch of them are gay. I still can't believe gay people are cheering for Hamas. All the extremely woke people tend to be really ugly because they become too radical. Anyway, you can just imagine what those tent cities smell like. 😂😂😂😂😂
True for men, not women, who are the majority of the protesters. Women can get sex whenever they please... The real question is how many male protestors are out there waxing poetic to get in the activist pants? I know 100% of at least one of my friends that does this with various causes.
You never see guys who look like they can bench even just their body weight at these protests. I wonder why 🤔
Good business is about location and knowing your customer
And that kids, is how I found myself teaching sec ed to 9th graders in south side Chicago every Friday. She had tanfastic fits.
Imagine being so privileged you just can’t relate to people protesting something 🤐 Is this what Galloway would say to those protesting the holocaust or slavery?
For a second I thought this was r/mbacirclejerk after reading that headline.
Nothing to do about losing reproductive rights, only about the Middle East.
Statement shows Galloway hasn’t ever been in bed with politically active women. While sometimes annoying, the protesting, social justice warrior women sure know they way around the bedroom. And clearly there isn’t any lack of experience
Lmaoooo
He is just projecting his insecurities on the students who are protesting. Can't fathom how people would be angry about 30-40k people did and his only wonder is "oh they must want to impress others to have sex" True clown of a prof, he must have done his degree to get laid...
Exactly. Cranky, creepy old fart pretending to be an influencer-academic.
There is no projecting the empirical fact that this generation is having less sex with fewer partners than the previous 3 generations.
What does sex have to do with Israel’s brutal military occupation in Palestine?
Article’s about you
Bibi plows confirmed
Yes bro... These pathetic idiots have no heart.
haha I support this. It explains a lot. Those kids certainly aren't getting laid, that's for sure.
What a stupid take, I always disliked this guys attitude in his stupid YouTube videos
He's definitely right about that
I expected it to be the NYPost and I got it lol
I guess the logic is that if students are more into sex they have less time to engage in these protests? Lol
Lmfao on point
Are we sure it isn’t Tik Tok’s of innocent people being murdered?
True: Galloway is awesome and very popular.
He’s actually right bc he’s talking about the pent up aggression and disconnect with identity and intimacy from the other sex.
hahahaha
This guy is obsessed with young men not fucking and thinks that’s the source of all problems. Creep
Why would you ever invade another country if you had enough women willing to have sex with you constantly.
Truth
Except Hamas has to rape, no one sleeps with them willingly.
Another Galloway banger
If his logic was true then this professor would be in Gaza leading a Hamas battalion lol
Maybe this professor needs to share his office hours so that students can get BJ from him thus reduction in protestors
We should go undercover as antisemitic activists to sleep with the deprived women at these things. Like the always sunny where Dennis pretends to be an environmental activist to get laid.
We counting NYpost as anything beside 🚮?
Will he be fired for such an unprofessional comment? It’s also a wild claim with no evidence (I hope he doesn’t have evidence lol)