This post reflects on the long-term consequences of divorce on children based on Judith Wallerstein's influential study. It argues that while divorce might seem like a solution to an unhappy marriage, it often has detrimental effects on children, particularly when it comes to their ability to form healthy, lasting relationships. Drawing from personal experience and societal trends, the piece suggests that staying in a marriage for the sake of children is often a better choice than divorce unless there is extreme abuse involved. It also critiques the current state of divorce laws and the societal influences that encourage divorce, emphasizing the importance of considering the impact on children before making such a decision.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5684344&forum_id=2#48684326)

My son was born out of wedlock to a woman who shoveled me out of the home immediately. I see him almost every day though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5684344&forum_id=2#48684336)

And in some cases, a broken family better prepares a kid for a broken world while the ones with happy families just get blindsided as adults and consequently fucked much harder.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5684344&forum_id=2#48684685)

It's

All

Genetic

Period

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5684344&forum_id=2#48684716)

This guy writes like he’s auditioning for the role of a 19th-century pamphleteer who’s been paid by the word and is desperate to stretch every thought into a torturous marathon. The prose is a bloated mess—paragraphs groan under the weight of endless clauses, tangents, and half-baked asides that collapse into a heap of intellectual debris. It’s as if he’s allergic to brevity, vomiting out every stray notion that crosses his mind without a shred of discipline. Reading it feels like wading through molasses while someone lectures you about their conspiracy binder—exhausting and borderline sadistic.

2. Smugness That Begs for a Slap

The tone drips with a smug, self-righteous sneer that’s so thick you can practically hear the author smirking through the screen. Every sentence reeks of a guy who thinks he’s cracked the code of the universe while everyone else is a drooling idiot. The sarcasm isn’t clever—it’s juvenile, a cheap parlor trick that screams "I’m above you" without earning it. Terms like “goyslop” or “globohomo” aren’t witty; they’re the literary equivalent of a neckbeard chuckling at his own meme stash. It’s not cutting—it’s cringe.

3. A Structural Trainwreck

Organization? What organization? This writing lurches from one idea to the next like a drunk stumbling through a dark alley, tripping over its own feet. There’s no flow, no coherence—just a chaotic spew of gripes and theories that collide without warning. You’re halfway through a rant about boys’ emotional ruin when—bam!—here’s a detour into elite cabals or some half-digested history lesson. It’s a structural disaster, a pile-up of thoughts so sloppy it’s a wonder anyone makes it to the end without a migraine.

4. Grandiose But Hollow

He swings for grand, sweeping critiques—progressivism’s war on boys! The downfall of masculinity!—but it’s all hot air. The arguments are puffed up with bombast yet collapse under scrutiny, propped up by vague assertions instead of meaty evidence. Where’s the data? Where’s the flesh-and-blood proof? It’s all abstract bloviating, a parade of buzzwords masquerading as insight. He’s posturing as a philosopher-king but delivers the depth of a Reddit thread—lots of noise, zero substance.

5. A Try-Hard Edgelord Routine

The edginess is forced and pathetic. Dropping “dissident” lingo and winking at the alt-right crowd doesn’t make you bold—it makes you a cliché. The writing tries so hard to shock and provoke that it’s less a critique and more a performance, a desperate bid for attention from the terminally online. It’s not brave to sling insults at “elites” or “progressives” in this echo chamber—it’s pandering, and it’s painfully obvious. The result? A style that’s less revolutionary and more like a kid scribbling “society sucks” on a bathroom stall.

6. Drowning in Its Own Pretension

The philosophical tangents—oh, the unbearable pretension! He name-drops concepts and historical parallels like he’s channeling Nietzsche, but it’s a shallow flex. The depth is fake, a thin veneer of erudition slathered over rants that don’t hold up. It’s the kind of writing that thinks it’s profound because it’s long and wordy, when really it’s just a tedious slog through a wannabe intellectual’s diary. Spare us the faux-sophistication—you’re not Spengler, you’re a Substack hack with delusions of grandeur.

7. Reader-Hostile to a Fault

This guy doesn’t give a damn about his audience. The dense, meandering blocks of text are a middle finger to anyone who dares skim or seek clarity. No hooks, no breaks, just a wall of verbiage that assumes you’ve got nothing better to do than decode his stream-of-consciousness drivel. It’s hostile, elitist in the worst way—like he’s daring you to keep up while secretly hoping you’ll quit so he can feel superior. Newsflash: readers aren’t masochists, and you’re not worth the effort.

8. Humor That Falls Flat

The attempts at humor are a crime scene. What he thinks are clever zingers land like wet socks—dull, awkward, and faintly embarrassing. The sarcasm doesn’t bite; it limps. The jabs at “progressivism” or “woke” culture are so predictable they could’ve been autogenerated by a bot trained on 4chan scraps. It’s not funny—it’s tired, a reheated dish from the edgelord buffet that nobody asked for.

9. A Voice That’s All Over the Place

Is he a somber preacher, a snarky troll, or a wannabe scholar? Pick a lane, for God’s sake. The voice veers wildly—grim one minute, snide the next, then pompous—leaving you dizzy and annoyed. It’s not versatile; it’s schizophrenic. A consistent style could at least give this mess an identity, but instead, it’s a jarring mashup that grates on the nerves. Figure out who you are and stick to it—this identity crisis isn’t charming, it’s sloppy.

10. Utterly Forgettable

For all the bluster, the writing leaves no mark. It’s a tempest in a teacup—loud, chaotic, and then gone. There’s no memorable line, no piercing insight, just a pile of words that evaporate the second you’re done. It’s the literary equivalent of shouting into the void: lots of effort, zero resonance. You finish a piece and think, “What was the point?”—and the answer is nothing, because it’s all sound and fury signifying zilch.

The Verdict

Neoliberal Feudalism’s style is a noxious stew of verbosity, arrogance, and aimless rage—a masterclass in how to alienate readers while convincing yourself you’re a genius. It’s not sharp; it’s a dull blade hacking away at strawmen. It’s not bold; it’s a coward’s tantrum dressed up as rebellion. If this is the best he’s got, he should spare us all and stick to muttering in his basement—because this writing isn’t just bad, it’s a punishment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5684344&forum_id=2#48684342)

The results of Wallerstein’s study were unequivocal: No matter how bad a marriage was or how easy a divorce was, children of divorce almost universally had worse outcomes than children whose parents stayed together.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5684344&forum_id=2#48684677)

Edit: Oh I think I see. The divorced couples would have probably had the worst possible marriages

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5684344&forum_id=2#48689818)

The divorce = end of the world pseuds are the same cohort of people who crow about how fatherless households turn boys into criminals (no, the boys just have their father's shitty criminal genetics)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5684344&forum_id=2#48689856)