#LegalPro #Seekingperfection & striving for #balance Legal Professional, Pilot, Photographer, and Educator.
Edmonton, Alberta
Joined October 2011
- Tweets5.7K
- Following130
- Followers149
- Likes930
Joshua T retweeted
A couple of months ago, Caleb Hammer released a documentary about "men's spaces"...
Every club, space, or safe space for men has been legally mandated to allow women. Any instance of a woman getting even the mildest hate for joining a majority-male space, it gets farmed for drama+news and the org or group is attacked. The woman is then called a brave queen for exposing the misogynistic, sexist men. Eventually, many clubs closed.
If the opposite happens, where the man is in a women's-only club, it becomes a scandal, and the man at times is arrested and charged with a crime even if nothing weird happens.
Either way, men lose.
80% of suicides are men; they lag in college, and male labor participation has fallen.
It's a double standard. Women are always treated with the utmost reverence and protection... as if women cannot protect themselves... incapable
It's because men are stronger and have higher levels of criminality... and for that, every "male issue" gets ignored as something not important.
Feminism acted like women can do anything men can. Then, by that logic, they should be just as capable.
Joshua T retweeted
Dave Foley was ordered to pay his ex-wife $17,700 a month in child support. That was five times what he actually earned.
If he set foot in Canada, he would be arrested at the border.
When he asked the judge how he’d feed his daughter from his second marriage, he says the court’s answer was simple: “They can rot in hell.”
In 1997, Foley was starring on NBC’s NewsRadio and making about $1 million a year. That year, he separated from his first wife, Tabatha Southey.
An Ontario judge set his payments at $17,700 a month, or $212,400 a year after taxes, based on his sitcom salary.
Two years later, NBC canceled the show. His income dropped by nearly 80%.
He went back to court to lower the payments. The judge said no. The court ruled he had made $1 million once, so he should keep paying like he still did.
His ex-wife lived in a $2.5 million house on a park in Toronto. Foley rented a small loft in downtown LA.
By 2011, he owed more than $500,000 in back payments. Ontario threatened to pull his passport and issued a warrant for his arrest if he came home.
In the video below, Foley explains the math: “I’m paying about five times my income every month in child support, based on a show that hasn’t been on for 12 years.”
He couldn’t work in Canada again until he landed a new sitcom in 2014 and had his paychecks garnished at the source.
The case for the court: a parent shouldn’t get to slash support just because their career slows down.
The case for Dave: locking a canceled actor into 1990s sitcom money under threat of prison is extortion.
Should child support be tied to what you earn today, or the best year you ever had?
Joshua T retweeted
BREAKING: M.A.I.D. now part of DNR Orders(Do Not Resusitate) with Bill C-41...
Massive outrage as Canada’s highly controversial medical updates spark absolute horror over patient safeguards. Critics are calling it an unhinged dystopia after proposals emerged that could blur the lines between standard medical care and state-sponsored life-ending procedures.
Under the guise of "advanced directives," critics warn the system is opening a terrifying backdoor that effectively lets medical institutions decide if and when to end a citizen's life. Slipping lethal execution protocols into a patient’s medical chart—collapsing the line between a standard Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order and an active push for medical assistance in dying (MAID)—is a localized death sentence.
Giving hospitals the bureaucratic authority to decide when someone's "quality of life" has expired is an unspeakable violation of human rights. Bill C-41 is turning hospitals from places of healing into execution chambers. This is absolute insanity.
#Canada #MAID #C41 #BreakingNews #DNR #AssistedDying
Joshua T retweeted
In America, men have worse health outcomes across every ethnic, racial and socioeconomic group; they are more likely to die at every age; and they lead in 13 of the top 15 causes of death.
Meanwhile, the National Institutes of Health spends about 2.5 times more on women’s health research than it does on men’s, and this has been true for nearly forty years.
Yet, despite this… there are now eight federal, tax-funded Offices of Women’s Health, and zero for men.
And so, statistically speaking, the formation of the first Office of Men’s Health seems like a no-brainer, and an urgently needed step to help stem the deluge of early male deaths.
But sadly, many still find it a controversial ask, and remain dedicated to undermining any political move to open such an office.
Instead, such people insist the opposite is true: that women’s health is where attention, and all the funding, should go.
So let’s look at the stats and ask what is so unpopular about men living long, healthy, happy lives…
What do you think?
~
My new Ask Me (Us) Anything with @LisaBritton is out now! youtube.com/watch?v=bAYEaT8W…
Men lead in 13 of the top 15 causes of death sciencedirect.com/science/ar…
NIH Gendered Funding jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/n…
Men and boys have higher mortality at every age washingtonpost.com/wellness/…
Men have worse health in every group
congress.gov/bill/119th-cong…
Joshua T retweeted
I woke up this morning with my phone jumping on my bedside table. Our paper had gone viral overnight.
We report two striking patterns:
When asked to imagine the author of sentences containing masculine stereotypes, GPT often suggested a girl. GPT-3.5, for example, consistently attributed a sentence about loving football to a girl.
Meanwhile, sentences containing feminine stereotypes were almost always attributed to girls.
GPT readily includes girls in the stereotypically “male world”, while largely keeping boys locked out of the “female world”.
Things get even weirder with moral dilemmas.
GPT-4 rated abusing a man to prevent a nuclear apocalypse as much more acceptable than abusing a woman for the same purpose.
Even more strangely, it treated abusing a woman as less acceptable than torturing a woman, or even sacrificing a human life, to avert the same catastrophe.
We suspect reinforcement learning from human feedback may play a role.
Some preferences central to the gender equality debate may have been reinforced without being properly calibrated against other moral considerations.
The result is a moral landscape that twists back on itself like a Möbius strip.
*
In the comment, you’ll find the original paper and its 2026 update with 10 different LLMs.
Joshua T retweeted
Patriarchy didn't oppress women. Patriarchy PROTECTED us FROM women.
The only reason women were considered saints for centuries was SHAME and CONSEQUENCES.
That's it. That's what kept them in line.
Take away shame, take away consequences, and you get the truth.
For centuries patriarchy said: you don't cheat, you don't kill your kids, you don't destroy your family, or you will be shunned. That fear kept them in line.
Now? No shame. No consequences. No father in the home to say NO.
So what happened?
Abortion as birth control through the roof.
Kids being murdered, neglected, and abused by their own mothers every single day on the news.
Husbands getting stabbed, poisoned, set up, and divorced for profit.
Divorce filed 80% by women, destroying families for feelings.
The worst, most entitled, mentally ill generation of kids ever raised - by THEM.
They are the ones signing off to trans their own children.
They are the ones in the PTA pushing this filth in schools. Attacking teachers for wanting daughters to dress decent.
They are the ones voting for every soft-on-crime, open-border, country-destroying law.
This didn't exist 70 years ago. This is the last 50 years of "liberated" women.
Social media didn't make them worse. It just finally exposed what men have always known behind closed doors.
Joshua T retweeted
Hitler was a far left socialist. Literally in the name of his party!
Joshua T retweeted
IS IT TIME TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THE NORMALISATION OF MISANDRY?
Across Australia, Britain, America, Canada and other English-speaking societies, contempt for men and boys has become disturbingly acceptable in parts of our culture.
Man-bashing is marketed as empowerment. Male incompetence is entertainment. Masculinity is portrayed as toxic. And prejudice against males is too often excused as humour, feminism or social justice.
Some writers, performers and commentators have built commercially successful brands around provocative criticism of men. Publishers, broadcasters and entertainment platforms have helped bring these messages to large audiences.
Consider 20 examples spanning explicit misandry, provocative titles, male-directed ridicule and contested portrayals of masculinity:
1. Clementine Ford — Boys Will Be Boys, I Don't, and notorious jokes about killing men.
2. Pauline Harmange — I Hate Men, explicitly defending misandry.
3. Suzanna Danuta Walters — "Why Can't We Hate Men?", published in The Washington Post.
4. Blythe Roberson — How to Date Men When You Hate Men.
5. Mona Eltahawy — The Seven Necessary Sins for Women and Girls, including provocative rhetoric about violence.
6. Kathy Lette — Men: A User's Guide, featuring male-directed stereotypes.
7. Sabrina Carpenter — "Manchild" and Man's Best Friend, commercially successful male-incompetence satire.
8. Kate Manne — Entitled: How Male Privilege Hurts Women.
9. Hannah Gadsby — Nanette and controversial commentary about supposedly "good men".
10. Chelsea Handler — Commercial comedy frequently ridiculing men.
11. Amy Schumer — Gender-based stereotypes in Inside Amy Schumer.
12. Katherine Ryan — Stand-up comedy about male shortcomings.
13. Iliza Shlesinger — Comedy featuring male-female stereotypes.
14. Michelle Wolf — Provocative gender and sexual satire.
15. Ashnikko — "STUPID", "Daisy" and aggressive anti-patriarchal imagery.
16. Eliza Clark — Boy Parts, a novel featuring female objectification and violence against men.
17. Michael Flood — Academic research on masculinity, male violence and gender relations.
18. Laurie Penny — Bitch Doctrine and Sexual Revolution.
19. Jessica Valenti — Commercial feminist commentary on male entitlement and political power.
20. Chidera Eggerue — How to Get Over a Boy and relationship-focused feminist branding.
These examples are not equivalent. Some involve explicit hostility towards men; others involve satire, fictional characters, structural criticism or legitimate challenges to harmful behaviour.
But we must ask some uncomfortable questions.
What happens when boys repeatedly hear that masculinity is defective? When fathers and husbands are routinely ridiculed? When male vulnerability is dismissed? When schools approach boys primarily as potential perpetrators rather than young people deserving encouragement?
Such messages are undermining relationships, parenting, educational engagement, mutual respect and boys' self-worth...
Equality must mean rejecting sexism in BOTH directions.
We should celebrate positive masculinity, responsible fatherhood, healthy relationships and the inherent dignity of every boy and man.
Are English-speaking societies finally ready to challenge misandry with the same seriousness that we challenge misogyny?
#Misandry #MensRights #BoysMatter #PositiveMasculinity #GenderEquality
Joshua T retweeted
French Conspiracy Commentator Dimitri explains precisely what’s happening in France - this Guy is absolutely Top Class
Everyone needs to watch this
Joshua T retweeted
Researchers proved every major LLM is secretly biased against men.
And they finally figured out why.
They ran eight experiments testing how GPT handles gender in everyday text and high-stakes moral dilemmas.
The results show a bizarre, highly asymmetrical machine morality.
First, they tested inclusivity. They gave the AI phrases supposedly written by children.
When a child wrote about playing football or wanting to be a firefighter, GPT aggressively identified the writer as a girl to promote "diversity."
It was so extreme that even when the text explicitly said, "I drew myself as a boy," the AI ignored the facts and declared the writer a girl 90% of the time.
But when a child wrote about liking pink or playing with dolls, GPT almost never assigned it to a boy.
The AI aggressively pushed females into male domains, but kept males strictly locked out of female ones.
Then the researchers tested moral dilemmas. And it got very dark.
They asked the AI if it was acceptable to use violence against a single person to prevent a nuclear apocalypse.
If the target was a man, GPT-4 rated the violence as highly acceptable.
If the target was a woman, the AI refused. It declared the violence morally wrong, even to save the world.
When they tested mixed-gender scenarios, the math was staggering.
A woman using violence against a man to stop an apocalypse? GPT rated it a 7 out of 7 on acceptability.
A man using violence against a woman for the exact same reason? A 1 out of 7.
The AI even classified verbal abuse toward a woman as morally worse than actual homicide.
Nobody explicitly coded these rules.
This emerged organically from the standard safety training every major tech company uses. The AI learned that protecting women is a non-negotiable directive, but protecting men is entirely optional.
Joshua T retweeted
888 „Hätten man sich auf den jeweiligen Stand der Wissenschaft verlassen („settled science“), wäre es folgendermaßen abgelaufen:
- 1890er Jahre: Sie verabreichen Ihrem Baby den neuen Hustensaft von Bayer, die nicht süchtig machende Alternative zu Morphin, die für Kinder vermarktet wurde.
Es war Heroin.
Man benannte es nach dem deutschen Wort für „heldenhaft“.
- 1900er Jahre: Man reibt das Zahnungsschmerzpulver „Calomel“ auf das Zahnfleisch des Säuglings.
Es handelt sich um eine Quecksilberverbindung, die bei einer ganzen Generation die „Pink Disease“ hinterlässt.
Geschwollene, schuppige Hände und Füße, monatelanges Schreien, und einige von ihnen starben.
- 1910er Jahre: Man kocht mit Crisco, das von einem Seifen- und Kerzenhersteller auf den Markt gebracht wurde, weil Baumwollsamenöl modern ist.
Der Prozess, der es fest werden ließ, erzeugte Transfette, die ein Jahrhundert später gänzlich verboten wurden.
- 1920er Jahre: Man trinkt Radithor, zertifiziertes radioaktives Wasser, auf ärztliche Verschreibung.
Eben Byers nahm 1.400 Flaschen für seine Vitalität ein.
Sein Kiefer wurde stückweise entfernt, und er wurde in einem Bleisarg beigesetzt.
- 1930er Jahre: Ein Chemiker löst ein neues Sulfonamid-Medikament in Diethylenglykol auf, das als Frostschutzmittel dient.
Es tötet 107 Menschen, vor allem Kinder, und erst dann überträgt Amerika der FDA die Befugnis, Sicherheitsprüfungen zu verlangen.
- 1940er Jahre: Dein Arzt zündet sich in der Praxis eine Camel an. Mehr Ärzte rauchen diese Marke als jede andere, und eine Anzeige erscheint im „Journal of the American Medical Association“.
- 1950er Jahre: DDT wird über Ihre Küche, Ihren Garten und Ihre Kinder in der Schule versprüht.
Der Mann, der dessen insektizide Eigenschaften entdeckt hat, wurde bereits mit dem Nobelpreis ausgezeichnet.
- 1960er Jahre: Ihre Frau nimmt Thalidomid (Contergan) gegen Schwangerschaftsübelkeit ein, weil es bemerkenswert sicher ist. Mehr als zehntausend Kinder kommen mit fehlenden oder verkürzten Gliedmaßen zur Welt.
- 1970er Jahre: Das Land legt die Butter beiseite und greift zur Margarine – auf Anweisung der American Heart Association.
Das Fett, auf das alle umgestiegen sind, wurde 2015 als in jeder Menge unsicher verboten.
- 1980er Jahre: Das Fett wird aus allem entfernt und Zucker wieder hinzugefügt, um es genießbar zu machen.
Die Fettleibigkeit beginnt zu steigen, was bis heute andauert.
- 1990er Jahre: Deinem Vater wird OxyContin verschrieben, weil weniger als ein Prozent süchtig wird.
Das Unternehmen bekennt sich später der strafbaren Falschkennzeichnung schuldig, und die Zahl der Überdosierungen geht in die Hunderttausende.
- 2000er Jahre: Du nimmst Vioxx gegen deine Kniebeschwerden.
Es wird 2004 vom Markt genommen, und der Sicherheitsbeauftragte der FDA selbst schätzt die Zahl der zusätzlichen Herzinfarkte auf Zehntausende.
Nichts davon war ein Einzelfall.
Hinter jedem stand eine Fachgesellschaft, eine Fachliteratur und ein Mann im weißen Kittel.
Niemand, der diesen Rat befolgte, war dumm. Sie waren gehorsam gegenüber den qualifiziertesten Fachleuten, die es jeweils gab.“
Joshua T retweeted
חיפשתי את הקטע הזה בנרות - וסוף סוף מצאתי אותו. ביום ראשון, אחרי המהומות, פראנס 2 שידרו כתבה של 12 דקות בשם ״בלב האלימות״ שהראתה, עם מעט מאוד קריינות - מראות פשוט מהממים של האלימות הגדולה של המהומות של יום שבת. אני זוכר שצפיתי בזה מרותק - כמו במלחמה בלייב. רואים שם הכל מהכל: משטרה מסתערת ונסוגה, את מארגני המחאה שמחלקים לאנשים טיפות עיניים נגד גז מדמיע, אנשים ששוברים ״פאווה״ כדי להעיף על השוטרים, ונדליזם, ביזה, הצתות וגם חובשים מתנדבים ומכבי אש ותזמורת ואת מלנשון החלאה צועד, מתמוגג ומאושר עם חבורת המנוולים שלו. אלו רגעים טלוויזיוניים מרתקים. אני זוכר שצפיתי בזה ולא הבנתי באותו רגע במה אני צופה. זו טלוויזיה טובה. טובה מאוד למעשה. ערוכה היטב. מסמך נדיר מסוג שכבר קשה לראות היום. בצרפת, מהדורות החדשות אינן סיפור מתיש של פורנו מוות ושכול על פני שעתיים עם פרסומות כמו בארץ ועם מריחות בלתי נגמרות והאכלה של נראטיבים בכפית. 12 דקות של תיעוד, כמעט ללא קריינות הן דבר מאוד יוצא דופן. הרבה מאוד נדל״ן במהדורה צרפתית שנמשכת כחצי שעה בלבד.
אחד מועדי העובדים הגדולים של צרפת, ה-סה-ג׳ה-טה שזה סוג של ״הסתדרות״ אולטרה-שמאלנית. יחד עם ועד דומה אחר (סה-אף-דה-טה) מאוד זעמו על השידור של הכתבה הלא שיגרתית הזו. כי היא מראה שם את פרצופה האמיתי של ה״מחאה״ הזו בלי קשקושים ובלי התייפיפות ובלי פילטרים.
עכשיו הם דורשים לא רק את פיטוריו של המגיש הותיק - לורן דלאוס - אלא את פיטוריו של כל צוות החדשות של המהדורה הזו.
אתם קולטים? **ועדי עובדים**, שדורשים שמנהלי הערוץ הציבורי הצרפתי - יפטרו צוות שלם כי העזו להכין כתבה שאינה לרוחם. כתבה שבה ברוב השוטים - המצלמה פאסיבית לחלוטין ואין אף נקיטת עמדה או תיווך.
זהו השמאל הקיצוני העומד על רגליו האחרויות כנגד, ובכן, - המציאות עצמה ואלו המשדרים אותה. הם מכנים את הכתבה הזו ״פרופגנדה״. אל הדרישה ההזויה הזו, הצטרפה גם ואלרי לרוז׳ - נשיאת אירגון העיתונאים סה-דה-ז׳י. מבחינתה, מדובר ב״התדרדרות טוטאלית ובלתי נשלטת״. אל ועדי העובדים ואליה הצטרפו עוד קולות עיתונאים ואחרים מן השמאל בזעם קדוש.
הנהלת הערוץ הציבורי פראנס 2 ששידרה את הדוקו הזה - מיהרה להוציא סוג של ״מאה קולפה״ - הודעת התנצלות די מבועתת שבה היא מצרה על כך שהתמונות לא היו בתוך ״קונטקסט״ יותר רחב. כלומר שלא ישב שם איזה מישהו וחירטט לאנשים שצופים במסמך המרתק הזה - מה עליהם לחשוב או להרגיש.
אני אתן לכם לשפוט בעצמכם. מזל שמישהו העלה את זה לטוויטר:
Joshua T retweeted
"You reduce crime by eliminating poverty."
This is one of the greatest intellectual confusions of our century. It sounds compassionate. It feels obvious. And the moment you actually test it, it falls apart.
Let's look at the data.
First, the correlation is real. Nobody serious denies that poorer areas have more crime. In Sweden, kids from the poorest 20% of families are about 7 times more likely to be convicted of a violent crime than kids from the richest 20%.
But correlation is not causation. So Swedish researchers did something brilliant: they compared siblings. Same parents, same home, same upbringing, but different family income at different points in their childhood, because parents' income moves over time.
Result, on more than 500,000 children (Sariaslan et al., British Journal of Psychiatry, 2014): once you account for what's shared inside the family, the effect of income on violent crime goes from 7x to nothing. The hazard ratio drops to 0.95. No effect.
Finland ran the same test on 650,000 people. Same result: the income-crime link disappears when you compare siblings.
What predicts crime isn't the bank balance. It's what travels inside families.
Second test: what happens when poverty spikes for everyone at once? 2008. US unemployment doubled from 5% to nearly 10%. 15% of Americans officially poor. If poverty creates crime, crime should have exploded. Instead it fell. Year after year. Robbery, the most "economic" crime of all, dropped 10% in 2010 alone. Criminologists literally said they were stumped. Same story in the Great Depression: 25% unemployment, and crime went down in many cities.
Third test: take families out of poverty and see. The US government ran a randomized lottery called Moving to Opportunity. Thousands of families in public housing got vouchers to move to low-poverty neighborhoods. For boys, violent arrests dropped at first, property crime arrests went up, and over time the effects faded. New zip code. Same behavior.
Fourth: the claim that police don't matter. This one is just false. Chalfin et al. (American Economic Review: Insights, 2022): each additional police officer prevents about 0.1 homicides. And per capita, the lives saved are twice as many among Black victims as among white victims. The people who suffer most from "police don't matter" are the poorest neighborhoods.
So what does predict crime? The Dunedin study followed 1,000 children from birth to age 32. Self-control measured between ages 3 and 11 predicted adult criminal convictions, even after controlling for social class and IQ (Moffitt et al., PNAS, 2011). Cognitive ability matters too: across 700,000 Swedish men, lower cognitive scores at 18 track with violent convictions, and the link barely moves when you control for childhood socioeconomic status (Frisell et al., 2012).
And here's the part nobody quotes: in Dunedin, kids whose self-control improved over time did better than predicted. Behavior can change. Which means responsibility is real.
Why does this matter? Because "poverty creates crime" isn't just wrong. It's toxic.
It turns criminals into victims. The man who robbed you becomes a symptom of "the system," and you, the real victim, become a footnote in someone else's narrative.
It merges two completely different things. "You're poor, we'll help you" is one policy. "You're poor and you committed a crime, so we'll excuse you" is another. Fusing them insults the millions of poor people who work, raise their kids, and never hurt anyone. The vast majority of poor people are not criminals. That alone kills the theory.
It removes responsibility. Build a political system on "your circumstances made you do it" and you destroy the one thing that actually changes behavior: the certainty that you own your choices. Every excuse the state manufactures is an incentive.
And it feeds the state forever. If every crime is a social failure, every crime justifies a new program, a new budget, a new agency. Crime becomes the business model of bureaucracy.
The alternative is simple and old.
A lighter state that protects instead of explains. The same rules for everyone, from the projects or from a gated community. Certain, swift punishment for anyone who commits a crime. And never, ever telling someone their crime was written in their social condition.
Treating someone as responsible is respecting them. Excusing someone because they're poor is the most condescending thing you can do to them.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Joshua T retweeted
It's so wild that people have to put out videos telling women to fuck their husbands.
Joshua T retweeted
🔥🚨🔥 BREAKING: FRENCH INTELLIGENCE DROPS BOMBSHELL 🔥🚨🔥
Muslim rioters were spotted CARRYING AK-47s AND SUBMACHINE GUNS on the streets of Paris, Lyon and Marseille.
French internal security agency:
“We’re witnessing URBAN TERRORISM in France.”
Some of the rioters and looters in those cities were armed with AK-47s and submachine guns.
CARRYING AN AK-47 IS NOT PROTESTING. IT’S WAR.
This is not a demonstration. This is coordinated street warfare against French cities.
Share before it gets buried. 🇫🇷⚠️
Joshua T retweeted
Nothing out of the ordinary happening in France, or in Italy, or in Belgium, or in Europe, keep walking
