Almost all women are completely wrong about why men approach women.

Especially these days, women believe that men approach them because they think the men expect to be having sex 10 minutes later. This is false for nearly (99.9%+ all men).

For most men (and I cannot stress this enough), talking to a cute, interested girl is the fun.

Anything that happens after that is great, sure. But it’s not the reason. It’s amazing for all that women claim to understand men¹ that they do not get this.

1. Hint: They really very much do not.

Technologists who stray from the light and begin to imagine sociological solutions to major problems end up being just as silly as anti-technologists who do the same.

Return to the light of "MONKEY USE TOOL". https://t.co/A023jMJ062

— Noah Smith 🐇 (@Noahpinion) July 4, 2025

Agreed with both. Technological solutionism works but tech-bro sociology is inhuman and terrible.

Degrowthers — no matter which side they are on — are the true evil. The whole “technology can’t get us out of this!” is so insane. And dangerous. Motherfucker, it’s the only thing that can.

Arguing that the Enlightenment or the Renaissance did not occur because people at the time did not call it those things is — and I cannot stress enough — fucking idiotic.

A river exists whether or not you call it a “river.” And the agricultural revolution still occurred no matter what it was named post-hoc¹. Names are irrelevant in this context. The events and the turn and transition of history is all that matters.

Arguing that the Enlightenment did not happen because no one sat up in bed one morning and declared, “Hey, motherfuckers, it’s the Enlightenment! Ain’t this some shit!” is just not serious scholarship; it’s specious clownery based on what something is named rather than what is actually occurring in reality. Politics cannot be divorced from history. Nevertheless, claiming that something does not exist because it does not seem fair or does not comport with your idea that all humans are exactly the same all the time is a poor way to practice your craft. And wrong.

1. Though to be fair it was a rather slow revolution.

Post like "what on earth could a 20 year old and a 30 year old have in common" frustrate me because like. The answer there is "potentially literally everything about their lives except their age and what cartoons were airing when they were little."

— Murdered British Boy (@VerilyRosen) April 8, 2025

Great thread. That has always puzzled me in the extreme too, the contention that grown-ass adults can have nothing in common with even a pretty small age gap. As a refutation, I had more in common with my 70-someting-year-old great aunt when I was in my early teens than anyone else. That’s because we both read books, were curious about the world, weren’t wildly racist and thought in the same ways. (Alas, she understandably rarely visited North Florida but was one of the few in my family who actually liked me.)

And that sort of congruity across different ages is common in my experience outside of the context of family as well. For instance, I had tons more in common with the twenty-year-old intern I was mentoring at an old job when I was 42 than any of my same-age peers. Again, we had similar proclivities, we both were really into reading, and both had absurdist senses of humor. And we liked the same music. I could go on.

Romantically speaking, on net it’s almost certainly better off for both men and women to at least once or twice be in age gap relationships. You often can learn a thing or two and if you don’t, so what? Just not limiting yourself to a small dating pool is a huge benefit. Your person might turn out not to be born at the same exact moment you were.

This whole discourse is frickin’ demented.