Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    + friends - friends
    178 link karma
    72,616 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Affirmative Action is Racist. the-capitan 10 points ago * (lasted edited 3 hours ago) in unpopularopinion

    it's far worse than that. a study by stanford and UCLA found that affirmative action in law schools actually reduces the number of blacks graduating lawschool and eventually becoming lawyers. they used multivariate testing in class sections (so one section gets race blind admissions, another gets affirmative action policy #4, another gets AA policy #7, etc). affirmative action fails even the most basic of means testing. it does not increase minority representation in any field... it lowers minority representation. they even know why it happens...

    (1) admission standards in any rigorous field are usually predictors of success at that institution regardless of race. AA causes a vacuum of failure for minorities. the tier 1 school now accepts tier 1 and tier 2 minorities. the tier 2 school can't get the tier 2 minorities anymore so they take tier 3. but they were also trying to increase their minority representation so they dip even further into tier 4. the minorities at tier 3 schools are just embarrassingly bad and shouldn't be in any school. the kids who were admitted on AA to any school are automatically the least qualified in the class, and usually below the university's standards. a tier 2 minority had a shot at passing at a tier 2 school, but just doesn't keep up at a tier 1 school. this drastically reduces the success rates of minorities at all levels.

    (2) although the schools are happy to virtue signal, students give zero fucks about AA when it's their future on the line. when it comes to study groups and social clubs with school practicing AA, the outside-of-class groups get MORE segregated, not less. without AA, everyone knows that a minority/female is just as qualified as everyone else, so minorities and females are welcomed at roughly the same rate as everyone else and their success rates are high. but with AA, everyone knows that most of the minorities/females are objectively less qualified (or in the case of anything outside of tier 1 schools, ALL or almost all of the minorities/females are objectively less qualified). as these are your class competition, minorities/females are ostracized across the board, guaranteeing that white/asian males do better. interestingly, white women are the MOST discriminatory in these respects, even when they're a less-qualified AA recipient.

    AA points don't transfer over to final exams, and certainly not to bar exams and medical board exams. the end results is that classes that don't have AA produce far more minority/female professionals than those that don't. be clear in what i'm saying... the success rate is SOOO much lower for AA classes that the sheer numbers are even lower than race blind. if a race blind class admits 30 blacks, and an AA class admits 90 blacks, the race blind class will successfully graduate ~20 blacks. but the AA class with 3x the blacks doesn't produce 60 successful black graduates. the success rates are so much lower (because they walked in unqualified) that the AA class doesn't even produce 15 successful blacks. because of the vacuum effect described above, the students who would have done fine in a race blind tier 2 class instead went to a tier 1 school on AA, now failing dramatically because they're unqualified. meanwhile the tier 2 class is full of unqualified tier 3 and 4 minority students. in other words, affirmative action isn't just racist/sexist against white/asian males by depriving them of seats they're more qualified for... it hurts females/minorities more than race/gender blind admissions. SJWs have used this death spiral of minority/female representation not to admit that their policies don't work, but instead amp up AA even more aggressively. in short, people who support affirmative action are the worst kind of racist/sexist... they're hurting minorities/women and claiming it's for their own good.

    but wait, there's more! employers also get shit on hard when they practice AA. shortly after damore filed his lawsuit against google saying they openly discriminate against white and asian males (their defense isn't that they don't... their defense is that their flavor of discrimination is legal... which is false in california... google is fucked), a handful of female AA hires filed suit against google claiming they were discriminated against as women. their complaint? white/asian men around them were promoted at much higher and quicker rates and google held them back. turns out these female AA hires were left to stagnate because they weren't even qualified for the job they were hired with, nevermind promotions. google had picked up so many female AA hires who were clearly unqualified that their own data shows they definitely promoted women less, specifically all the AA hires. now google is totally fucked... stuck in between giving up on SJW diversity bullshit, and promoting people who even google admits are objectively unqualified.

    [–] Attracting the wrong people the-capitan 1 points ago in dating_advice

    you're in the same bucket as this girl, and the advice is exactly the same: require exclusive commitment before ANY sexual contact.

    [–] Affirmative Action is Racist. the-capitan 11 points ago in unpopularopinion

    harvard bragged about this being their first minority-majority class. someone ran through the classes and took pics. it's whiter than ever... now they're just lying about it.

    [–] Meet Stephen Miller, the 32-year-old White House adviser who convinced Trump to start separating migrant children from their parents at the border the-capitan 1 points ago * (lasted edited 9 hours ago) in politics

    The first time you cross the border, it's a civil offense

    now who is being disingenuous... overstaying a visa unintentionally is only a civil offense. intentional border hopping is a crime under 8 USC 1325(a).

    Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

    Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

    here's an actual no-bullshit version of the border situation: the only thing trump is doing is enforcing the law.

    [–] Can any figure out why guys keep ghosting her? She certainly can't. the-capitan 6 points ago in WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

    that makes other women want to fuck you more


    with rampant hypergamy, guys who have social proof of other women fucking them are only higher value to women.

    [–] Can any figure out why guys keep ghosting her? She certainly can't. the-capitan 5 points ago in WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

    this strategy has completely backfired with women not requiring commitment. let's say we have chad, carol, and thot #2 (let's call her carolina). let's say carol puts her girly brush in chad's door and carolina finds it.

    • if carolina thinks she's exclusively committed with chad, then chad maybe pays the price... carolina might break up with him. personally, i've found much of the time, she does not. many women will put up with infidelity for a chance to be with chad. women would rather share an alpha than own a beta. but carol doesn't really gain anything in her relationship with chad for doing this. if anything, now chad is just annoyed with her for outing him.
    • if carolina does NOT think she's exclusively committed with chad, then chad doesn't just not pay the price... chad actually benefits. women get serious FOMO over chad. leave two wine glasses in the sink, one with clearly girly lipstick marks. leave a girl's earring on the floor by the night stand on the other side of the bed. and if you want some nuclear FOMO hamstering, leave an empty condom wrapper slightly hanging out from under the edge of the bed that's conspicuous enough that she'll see it, but it just looks like you missed it. this stuff doesn't scare women off... it makes them compete harder for chad because she sees chad as even higher value when other women want him. so uncommitted carolina sees the brush and knows chad is banging other women... she NEEDS to bang him even harder because he's high value.

    [–] The dreaded "ghosting" and how the hell do I deal? Infuriated but turned on?? the-capitan 4 points ago * (lasted edited 4 hours ago) in dating_advice

    you cannot change or control their behavior... only your own. the problem is the guys you're going after and the strategy you're using. hear me out, as this is not PUA, not redpill. it's pure matching market economics, and both the nobel prize winning alvin roth, and the economists from freakonomics have written extensively on this. i'm not certainly not the first to study this. even world bank is writing about this because it measurably affects spending habits at national levels.

    dating app tracking data shows that virtually all women exclusively chase the same top 10-20% of men. these guys at the top have options. lots of options (the guys outside the top get nothing). moreover, a guy will easily bang a girl who is multiple notches below him (who he'd never commit to) as long as she's easy to get in bed, and you admit you jump in bed easily. if you jump in bed without exclusivity, you've already lost the commitment game. why would he buy the cow if the milk is free? no it's not equal between men and women and it's certainly not fair, but this is how the economics of the mating market works.

    the mating market follows matching market economics. it's not like grocery shopping... buying groceries is not a matching market... you walk in, pick an apple, and check out. if groceries were a matching market, that apple has to affirmatively choose you also. as the mating market is a matching market, the guy you choose also has to choose you back. and in the general economics of the mating market, one partner provides more resources, and the other provides more sexual access. if there's an imbalance, there's no commitment. the NIH article above refers to this as genetic fitness (sexual attractiveness) vs parental investment (commitment of resources). historically in homosapien, it's the male providing resources for the female's sexuality. so either:

    • he is less attractive than you and provides resources; you're more attractive and provide sexual access. he'll commit.
    • he is equally as attractive as you but he provides resources; you're both equally attractive so you're providing equal sexual access. but wait, he's providing more resources... most of these guys will not commit because that means he's already investing more than you.
    • he's more attractive than you and provides resources; you're providing less sexual access (by virtue of him being more attractive). if he's significantly more attractive than you, he doesn't even have to provide significant resources. the sexual access imbalance alone is already drastically in his favor. either way, he has a strong disincentive to commit, and these guys never do in this case.

    also, while you decide whether you think a guy is attractive, his attractiveness on the mating market is not determined by you. it's determined overall by the behavior of all women as a whole. when you're going after a top 10-20% guy, almost all other women are vying for him also. and as above, to obtain commitment when he is providing more resources, you have to be more attractive. you're not getting true exclusive commitment from that guy unless you're a 9 or 10 bombshell yourself.

    but capitan! what if i provide equal or more resources in the relationship?

    in my experience, women don't. ever. not even close. let's ignore what everyone already knows, and say you did provide equal resources though (meaning you INSIST on fully paying your own way 100% of the time) and the guy valued that (most guys don't). if you're providing equal resources, you still lose. why? because resources and sexual access are not frozen in time. women are most attractive in the 20-23 window and their attractiveness falls off a cliff from there. girls consistently use makeup and clothing tricks to hide it all, but somewhere around 30, the continuing drop in attractiveness is too much for most women. meanwhile, women consistently find men more attractive into the man's late 30s. so as a 27 year old, your attractiveness is already a depreciating asset, and unless you're dating a guy who is 40+, his is still appreciating. further, men typically continue furthering their careers, while 80%+ of women who have even a single child massively divert their careers for childbearing... so even if you're equal in sexuality and resources right now, long term, you're not likely keeping up on either.

    the only way to find out where you stand is to require exclusive boyfriend/girlfriend commitment before ANY sort of sexual engagement. if he won't commit, it's because he believes he's higher mating market value than you, and your commitment is a bad deal for him. you have to keep moving down the pecking order of men until you find a guy who will commit to you. the only way to test them is to make them actually commit. some girls try to ask "so what are you looking for" and affirmatively say "no hookups" / "serious relationship only", but then fail to actually follow through on that. this is because top guys know how the system works -- they ignore what you say and pay attention to your behavior. that's why they're at the top in the first place.

    even worse, men generally believe that promiscuous women are low commitment value in the mating market. numerous studies by the CDC, UVA, UMD, and UOU confirm that virtually all women who get to 16+ sexual partners can't keep a marriage together for even 5 years. a single premarital sexual partner drastically increases her divorce rate, from <10% to ~50%. it then hovers there until ~5 partners until it starts climbing rapidly. UVA confirmed that men do not have this issue (none of the other institutions tested whether men have this issue). so if you don't require commitment before hopping in bed, you're telling the guy you're low commitment value. if you jump in bed quickly, you're boxing yourself into the fuck-zone... he's already discounted you as low commitment value. most guys know this by some time in high school.

    but capitan! what if i improve my mating market value?

    this is extremely difficult for women and rarely happens in real life. much has been written about the endowment vs achievement dichotomy in the mating market. males start out as low value, they become high value with achievements. women are biologically endowed with higher value right out the gate. as a woman, you keep value by NOT doing certain things (don't eat uncontrollably, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't have health problems, don't fuck a bunch of dudes, don't cheat, don't divorce, don't rack up debt, don't be high maintenance, don't act like a whiny entitled cunt). there are very few things a woman can do affirmatively to increase her value beyond her endowment. unless you are so rich that neither of you have to ever work, most guys don't value your career/education. that's why census data shows that while female doctors/lawyers/executives only pursue other doctors/lawyers/executives, male doctors/lawyers/executives marry their secretaries

    final parting note... when you do start moving down the pecking order of men by requiring commitment, you will quickly find that the guys willing to give you commitment are significantly less attractive than the guys you were hooking up with. they excite you less. there's less fire, less of a spark. this is because the only reason you were able to get attention from those top guys at all was by throwing your sexuality at them for little/no commitment cost. when you start requiring commitment, you will learn your true mating market value.

    TLDR: require exclusive boyfriend/girlfriend commitment before ANY sexual contact.

    [–] Meet Stephen Miller, the 32-year-old White House adviser who convinced Trump to start separating migrant children from their parents at the border the-capitan -1 points ago in politics

    you really think all 25k were unaccompanied? nonsense, it's been standard policy for YEARS to book the adults.

    besides, what do you suggest we do with them? the adults must be arrested and processed for attempted border jumping. many will also be charged with child endangerment/neglect. what would you do with the adults and what would you do with the children?

    [–] Meet Stephen Miller, the 32-year-old White House adviser who convinced Trump to start separating migrant children from their parents at the border the-capitan 2 points ago in politics

    not at all disingenuous. that was already the policy under obama and none of you had a problem with it then.

    what do you suppose we do with them? the adults must be arrested and processed because they're violating the law.

    [–] Says the sub that blatantly pushed David Hogg and Shrek girl to the front page multiple times a few months back. the-capitan 1 points ago in CringeAnarchy

    during the obama administration, they started detaining the parents for processing (because they committed a crime) and separating the children into custody. by 2014, DHS already had 25k children in custody. one of the most common problems they were finding was that the adults weren't even the parents of the children. many would even admit it. these adults thought that if they had a child with them, they'd automatically be admitted because the US gov was not rejecting children. because of very strong border enforcement, attempted crossings are down significantly, which naturally means the incredible majority of those in custody are not from the trump years, but from obama's policies.

    the hypocrisy is that dems had no problem when obama did it at drastically higher numbers than trump, so that somehow makes trump literally hitler.

    they did the same shit during the election... hillary took over $100m from middle eastern governments which subjugate women and literally throw gays off of buildings as public executions, but david duke comes out as pro-trump while trump has repeatedly disavowed duke numerous times over 25 years, but somehow receiving non-monetary vocal support from someone trump disavows makes him a nazi anyway. if it wasn't for double standards, democrats wouldn't have any at all

    [–] Says the sub that blatantly pushed David Hogg and Shrek girl to the front page multiple times a few months back. the-capitan 1 points ago in CringeAnarchy


    trump is hitler! we must resist! police hate blacks and murder them every chance they get!

    also liberals:

    only trump and the black-murderer police should have guns!

    [–] MGTOW is now bigger than MRA according to Google Trends the-capitan 7 points ago in MGTOW

    MGTOW will grow much faster and much larger. look at japan for a glimpse of our future. 70% MGTOW. the deal has become so shitty that men are better off solo.

    [–] R/all loves cuckolding the-capitan 7 points ago in MGTOW

    so not only are you a useless bot, you're also a dumb bot. you belong over at /r/shittyrobots/

    [–] If you have been convicted of Rape/Sexual assault twice then you should be castrated the-capitan 4 points ago in unpopularopinion

    this. just look at any reports about female teachers having sex with students vs male teachers having sex with students. when a man does it, it's rape. when a woman does it, it's a relationship.

    [–] Women are married to the Government the-capitan 4 points ago in MGTOW

    the only way to solve this is that we need true gender equality in government. women are 50.8% of the population, so they need to pay 50.8% of tax receipts.

    [–] Mr. Carter in the house the-capitan 1 points ago in CringeAnarchy

    she doesn't want equality. she just wants people to pay for her shit.

    men pay virtually all taxes in the US. women are 50% of the population. they need to start paying 50% of all federal taxes.

    [–] WaPo columnist explains "just how bad the economics of the media industry are". Punchline for GG: Vox et. al are burning VC money, likely not profitable the-capitan 3 points ago in KotakuInAction

    are there big money donors out there who are willing to operate these sites at a loss to maintain control of the narrative

    the latter. washington post's media division has been in the red for over a decade. the only reason the corporate entity is alive is because they own numerous other ventures which are actually profitable.

    [–] WaPo columnist explains "just how bad the economics of the media industry are". Punchline for GG: Vox et. al are burning VC money, likely not profitable the-capitan 17 points ago in KotakuInAction

    fact. washington post is much bigger than just the news division, and the news division has been in the deep red for well over a decade. the company itself props up the media owns kaplan and some other profitable ventures which pay for all the operations of the unprofitable media division. the newspaper isn't a charity. the investors have to be making their money back somehow.

    [–] Now it's a high standard? Better to be alone i guess the-capitan 2 points ago in MGTOW

    my list is close...

    • no track record of terrible life choices. so no kids, no prior divorce, no smoking or drugs, no debt
    • no history of thotting/sluttery
    • no family problems (daddy issues and "daddy's princess" and growing up with bitter divorce in the family are definitely family problems)
    • no major health issues (including obesity and mental health). not only is it unhealthy, many of my interests are physical activity / outdoors. i'm fit and in the gym 5+ hours a week. that shit is not happening with unhealthy people.
    • common interests
    • 27 or younger on the first date (i want kids)
    • will accept not getting legally married (prenups are not worth the paper they're printed on).

    literally all a girl has to do is not be a fucking trainwreck. the only things she has to do affirmatively are share interests and want kids. everything else is "stop doing and don't be involved in stupid shit". far too many are train wrecks.

    [–] Now it's a high standard? Better to be alone i guess the-capitan 2 points ago in MGTOW

    it's not even "well put together" ... it's someone who doesn't have a proven track record of bad long term decisions.

    [–] "Toxic femininity isn't real, it's internalized misogyny." Feminism removes agency again [+15] the-capitan 7 points ago in ShitPoliticsSays

    we need more female agency and equality, not less. that's why i support the equal taxation amendment. women are half of society. they should pay half of all taxes. support equality. support equal taxation.

    [–] Gender equality requires that we make women pay equal taxes the-capitan 1 points ago in unpopularopinion

    (1) there are very few women who make $100k because women choose to work significantly less than men, in significantly softer jobs. women want to be equal, so they need to have an incentive to make them work as much as men and in more profitable fields.

    (2) women get drastically more benefits from the tax system than men. there are almost no male homeless or DV shelters. the bulk of medicaid patients are women and the children of single mothers. hell, planned parenthood took in $1.5b of taxpayer funding, and spends that significantly on women. so not only are men paying for everything, we're not getting it back.