Recently I've been seeing a lot of WAATGM orthogonal content on social media.

It's mostly women in their 30's complaining/shaming men for having "still figuring it out" on their dating profiles. You know exactly what I mean, "how can you still be 'figuring it out' in your 30's!?"

And as a man in his 30s, it just makes me laugh every time I see it.

It's essentially just an admission "I want to settle down, why are all of the (hot) men I want not willing to settle down (with me)?" And then attempting to shame them for it.

And then you go to the comments and it's just a circlejerk of post wall spinsters, hyping eachother up about how "immature" men are and how they "can't handle real women".

It's funny as well because these women believe there's some kind of written rule that by 30 marriage is obviously your goal. Except why would it be? Doesn't occur to these women at all that men might not even want marriage.

It gets funnier, as these women realise that the men they want are going after women in their 20's and they acknowledge as much, but it has to be wrapped in cognitive dissonance. It's because we can "control" them. And they're just too much of an independent boss girl for us to handle.

@Typo-MAGAshiv

Back in the day I thought we should have a Mrs Archwinger appreciation day.

As the alchemists showed, unsolvable problems contributed majorly to the advance of human knowledge.

I like how @Kloi sums up the current state of affairs.

What's left out, though, is men's need for love. (Men need love but can't find it, because women are incapable of it, while women find love but can't feel content because they are gluttonous by nature).

Until 100 years ago, a man was supposed to enter marriage with a woman after he made her submitt. The taming of the shrew was a prerequisite.

Now, capitalism has found that it can squeeze more surplus out of the family if it constantly excites the shrew. There's no reprieve for the man. (Typo, you've read Esther Vilar's second book, The polygamous sex, right? It's a bit dated, no evopsych back then, but it's impressive how she is able to grasp the gist of the difference in male/female love using 70s sociological notions and a humanitarian perspective).

The sad fact is that a relationship that is not supposed to last "till death do us part" necessarily turns into an antagonism of who can extract the most out of it. And women, having a more integrated psychopathic mode, are more equipped for that.

@Typo-MAGAshiv

His discussions did not include people who were led to addiction by their doctors,

Dude, I was in a position of listening to all three hours of his radio show, every day, for literally half a decade. Therefore, I can say with certainty: Rush did NOT, I mean not fucking once EVER, clarify, caveat, offer exceptional or outlier cases, that could in any way get even perceived as "diluting/softening" his hard-line positions on issues, particularly that of drugs. Even "legal" pharmaceuticals, he stood hard for the for-profit model, and vilified every other alternative as "socialized medicine, a slippery slope directly to full Communist takeover of the USA."

So yes, he was HARD in favor of the status quo that financially incentivizes doctors, hospital systems, and pharmaceutical companies, to push pills for money, and fuck all the guardrails around those with abuse potential. And, he wasn't just speaking in a vacuum. He was nationally syndicated, with an audience of tens of millions, who called themselves "Dittoheads" which as repeated on-air meant "I love you and completely agree with and believe everything you say!"

Thus, he modeled ideas, behaviors, and attitudes for the entire American Right Wing culture. His platform and positions, therefore held a symbiotic relationship with the culture and positions of law enforcement up to and including Federal agencies (classic example Chief Darryl Gates saying publicly, "Casual drug users ought to be taken out and SHOT!"), legislative bodies therefore the drafting, enactment, and enforcement of drug laws and literally tens of millions of dollars per year budgeted for interdiction and enforcement activities.

For my part, I was closely involved with the "legalize hemp/cannabis" movement, therefore a ground level soldier intimately involved in the "Drug War," Immersed in it personally, not a casual pundit on the sidelines with no more skin in the game than agreeing with a fat fuck radio host.

SO, for one of THE. TOP. players in the entire 2 decade drug war vertical industry and legislative machine, who in service of this position expressed the harshest possible treatment of OTHER drug users, to carve out a personal exception, and to selectively do the opposite of the entire corpus of his expressed position on the entire thing, is COMPLETELY out of the fucking question. When it came down to him personally, "falling victim" to the same human foibles and weaknesses he spent literally thousands of hours condemning others for; he deserves ZERO compassion, mercy, empathy, and other such things he also condemned personally, and claimed belonged to his ideological opposites, "The Left", when it suited him and the entire breadth and height of his hard line positions on drugs and their users.