Maybe they’re bots? 

They’re basically Neo-Lamarckians. 

Because the real issue is psychological.

But I think that their critics are so eager to accuse them all of being terrible because then they can avoid considering their points, which basically is: Dating has become very difficult for average men, with women mainly going for the most attractive men. It has never been more important for a man to be physically…

I’m not a car guy, so maybe this is industry standard, but I’m shocked at how neutral this sounds.

Christ, don’t remind me! I almost vomited again just based on the memory. 

She should have won for “Going once?”

Glenn Loury.

How’s the weather in St. Petersburg?

You should try this exercise:

Guy doesn’t want advice, he wants “Oh yeah man me too, society can’t tell us shit because our comfort is our choice”

*Punch*

Speaking of crap, I was taking one in an airplane bathroom when Eartha Kitt decided to bang me

I know that guy’s supposed to be the dipshitty one on Fox and Friends.

Neil, c’mon buddy. You’re not a business expert, and this isn’t even a ‘science’ question!

You could try thoughting and prayering. 

Everyone here sees his point. Some people don’t see that it’s a trivial point-for-point’s sake kind of a point, and those people don’t seem to grasp that it’s possible to mislead with perfectly true statements.

Also... particles is particles is particles, who cares what kind, or how they’re moving, right? 

It’s the same as pointing out that people are terrified of flying and completely unconcerned about driving, despite flying being far less likely to kill you, but instead of asking why people are more afraid of flying, you just say “therefore people are dumb, QED”. 

He writes for ‘sosch’ majors who think they know science. The people who loved Eats, Shoots and Leaves, who hate ‘literally’ and ‘like’, who argue with other people about ambiguously-ordered arithmetic problems on Facebook.