Aapje58
7mo ago
At least with a sidewalk or a separate path, you’re not blocking cars.
Why would a cyclist care about that? This is like trying to convince a Democrat to emigrate, so Republicans can govern the US as they want.
And cars block other cars quite a lot, so by your reasoning, people should stop driving and walk instead (which has the minimum amount of blockage).
Aapje58
7mo ago
The danger is stupid drivers who think that there is room when there isn't, and when they have a choice between hitting a car (low chance of injury) or the cyclist, they plow into the cyclist.
Aapje58
1yr ago
But what a revealing statement. Things were so bad that women who might have wanted to resort to prostitution couldn't because there weren't enough clients with means to pay!
It just shows that rich men were concentrated in cities, and their extra wealth was greater than the higher cost of living of the city.
What do you find revealing about this? Is the idea that there were huge wealth disparities in the past a revelation to you?
Aapje58
1yr ago
That may be tolerable for someone who wasn't Netanyahu. Netanyahu built his image on being the Great Defender
If he actually was a great leader, he first of all wouldn't have gotten into this situation in the first place, but he would have sacrificed his reputation and his political career for the benefit of Israel once he did end up in this situation.
Aapje58
1yr ago
Nonsense, they only started to support Hamas after the deradicalized PLO was unable to offer meaningful improvement to their lives, which was in no small part due to Israel losing even a modest will to find a real solution after the killing of Rabin.
Both Intifada's were long after the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that happened during the Arab–Israeli Wars. You can't retroactively justify ethnic cleansing by arguing that revolt against that cleansing and the subsequent oppression, justified the ethnic cleansing and oppression.
I've never heard anyone argue that a person who fights back after getting sucker punched, retroactively deserved that sucker punch because they fought back. So I have a hard time believing that your argument reflects a principle you hold in general.
Aapje58
1yr ago
I just found that, compared to more traditionally feminine methods of flirtation, explicitly expressing interest in men is often unsuccessful.
But that is a false dichotomy, because almost all flirtation happens when people are talking already, so that's when the approach has already happened. Of course, it is possible to signal interest (or flirt) from afar, but I believe that only a relatively small majority of approaches by men happen only after the woman has specifically signaled her interest in that man and he actually noticed.
In many cases, the man responds to a more general indication that the woman is open to being approached (like wearing revealing clothing) or simply makes the attempt without indications.
I think that the current situation where men don't have clear rules of what is allowed, don't get taught as much what to do and there is less room for making mistakes, leads to fewer and fewer men approaching women without any indications of her interest and putting less trust in ambiguous signals that do signal interest. So women's flirtation game is also not working as well.
The result is then that women who depend on men approaching them are effectively all fighting over a decreasing percentage of men, which automatically means that women are increasingly going to miss out, because the numbers don't match. But the consequences are actually more complex than just women missing out, because the increased bargaining power of those men means that men who do have the natural and or learned ability to deal with the new reality, or the lack of self-preservation instincts, can now 'pump and dump' women or otherwise treat women in ways that are ultimately bad for women.
So superficially it may seem like your approach is working quite well, because unlike men who complain about them failing, women do typically end up having casual sex and/or end up in a relationship with a guy who never gets serious and whom she leaves after a few years to try again, only to be alone for some years, only to get into a relationship with another non-serious person, until she gets close to infertility and either she never ends up with the family she wants or goes for one of the desperation moves (single motherhood, picking some shitty man who does want children, but is a bad parent and partner, etc).
But are those really successes for most women? And at the same time, we have perfectly fine men who end up alone and men who had potential, but were left to whither on the vine.
I believe that unless you change our culture (for which you supplied no plan at all), women in general and at least a solid subset of women, would be better off in the long term if they would adapt to the current situation and would approach shy men and diamonds in the rough. However, what probably won't work that well, is if you start to approach the subset of men that do well with women in the current culture. It's actually in their interest to discourage you from approaching men, because that would give their shy competitors a chance.
It was not the $20 bill on the ground that the other commenter believed it to be. That's all I was claiming.
You are actually the person who came up with the "$20 bill on the ground," not the other commenter. He said that women who approach men would gain rather than lose. He never said that it was trivially easy for women to do this, which your "$20 bill" comment implies.
You also very single-mindedly interpreted that 'gain' as what makes you more comfortable during the initial dating process, which is certainly not the only way to look at it. By that standard, having children is never a 'gain' over remaining childless, as children cause plenty of discomfort, certainly initially. Yet a large majority of people do believe that the benefits are worth it overall.
You may of course believe that the costs of having to approach men are too great (for you), but I don't think you've been charitable to the opinions of f3zinker or myself, when you apparently refuse to even entertain the idea that the downsides you experienced are perhaps solvable (for most women) or are fairly minor inconveniences that you only get so upset about because you've got a bad mindset; and bring upsides that may be larger than the downsides, especially in the long term (by having a substantially higher chance to end up with a better man).
Aapje58
1yr ago
Europeans and other supporters of protection of origin (like India) like to pretend this isn't true but it is
That's a pretty silly way to put it. People also use product names like 'googling stuff' for other search engines, yet the US still allows Google to trademark their name and then bans other companies from slapping Google on their search engines. That's not some sort of denial about how people use language. Legislators simply don't allow language use to dictate things like trademarks and in the EU, product names.
Aapje58
4mo ago
It's more similar to the native American situation. Yield land to appease the colonists and they will just come back to claim more once their needs grow, until only a fraction of land is left that is not worth the effort to take.
Aapje58
4mo ago
Why would you need 'experts' (often captured by ideology) or even worse, upvoted posts (virtue signalling), rather than just look at the hard data? Nearly all sports allow for intergender competition and/or have an objective measurement of performance (often timings). In most sports the gaps are so enormous that there is no doubt at all.
Aapje58
5mo ago
Tyrannies are problematic because there's rarely a good plan for what comes next. Once a tyranny ends (i.e. tyrant dies) there is chaos or more tyranny.
No, this is why hereditary monarchy was invented.
Aapje58
5mo ago
He doesn't wear blue contacts. You can see that he has blue eyes in images of him as a pubescent youngster.
Aapje58
7mo ago
Cycling absolutely requires a helmet.
Yes, that's why there are no people who cycle without a helmet for their entire life and live. Oh wait.
That helmet saved my life.
It's impossible to say whether that is the case, since depending on the quality and design on the helmet, and how you landed, the helmet could have reduced the energy transferred to your head anywhere between almost zero to a significant amount. And even if you had been worse off, that doesn't mean you would have died.
You really should improve your reasoning ability, because the statement you made is closer to religion than to fact.
Aapje58
7mo ago
I think the solution for most (nearly all?) of these scenarios is for the cyclists to go slower.
If you are a car in a crowded city you should not expect to be able to travel very fast, and certainly no where near the maximum capabilities of your vehicle and personal reaction times. Some cyclists seems to have this expectation.
That's because the speeds that cyclists expect to go are still not as fast as drivers expect to go in the city. Cars do not have the right to go faster in the city just because they are completely overbuilt for that environment.
I rode a bicycle on a university campus for 3 semesters until it got stolen. Its basically nothing but super crowded sidewalks constantly, with occasional glimpses of open space where you can go a little faster. I never hit anyone during this time. I also wasn't trying to go ~18mph.
Having mixed use like this is a way in which infrastructure can be designed, as can prevent accidents due to a sense of entitlement. But it only really works in certain situations, mainly involving 'last mile' traffic close to people's destination. Long haul routes cannot be designed this way.
Aapje58
7mo ago
If some space must be carved out of somewhere for the sake of cyclists, I think sidewalk space should be carved out before street space.
In the Netherlands, there are a lot of non-urban bicycle paths which are also used by pedestrians, runners, etc. This is generally fine (although pedestrians behave more poorly than cyclists), since the paths are suitable for cycling speeds and nicely flat.
And that cyclists should be held to sidewalk rules rather than street rules, since they can more easily follow sidewalk rules.
I think that sidewalk rules are worse to cyclists than a 10-20 mph zone is to drivers. At least the drivers get decent roads in that case.
Aapje58
7mo ago
(1) A speed limit is not a minimum. (2) You are supposed to be able to stop even for stopped traffic, not depend on magic escape routes to get you out of trouble. (3) You are supposed to drive in a way that is suitable for the circumstances.
And bike trails can be quite short, unsuitable for a racing bike, not linked to other nice roads that one might use, etc.
Aapje58
9mo ago
Cults should not be spied on either, unless they are a criminal organization.
Aapje58
1yr ago
The president declares "No-knock warrants are now classified as potentially lethal force," what changes?
Federal courts have decreed that police violence should be justified by the circumstances, primarily the risk to officers and others, so they would presumably need to be able to argue some proven risk.
Which in this case seems to be absent.
Aapje58
1yr ago
Why do you think that the right sort of women would not apply? Would they prefer to be among themselves for that kind of banter?
Aapje58
1yr ago
So a conspiracy of 3 people only needs 9 friends and family willing to turn a blind eye to anything suspicious and give the occasional alibi.
This assumes that the people who are part of the conspiracy tell their friends and family, but there are many possible reasons why they would not. For example, some organizations that deal a lot with secret things have a shared culture of not telling even their life partners about it. Another example is that the conspiracy can be very damning to the people involved, so they have a strong incentive to hush it up to everyone. Like a conspiracy that involves 'disappearing' a dead body or one where well-meaning researchers caused immense suffering and damage.
This is just pure racism. The Palestinians didn't fight those wars, countries like Egypt did.
More options
Context Copy link