Bombadil
29d ago
It's not like left wingers in Europe try to defend this kind of thing either. They might claim that these are isolated incidents that don't prove immigration is a problem, or that we are lacking context for the situation. But there is no way they would defend the officers here.
Bombadil
29d ago
The US just seems weirdly puritan about this. Age of consent in most of the world is slightly younger than 18, and it doesn't seem to cause problems. You can have a low age of consent so that teenagers are not punished for having sex, while still stigmatizing much older men having sex with someone half their age. And obviously 17 year olds should not be charged with possession of child pornography for having nude pictures of themselves on their phones.
Bombadil
29d ago
The early access scene is looking remarkably healthy these days. Subnautica 2 and Slay the Spire 2 have released to widespread audience acclaim. The gamers who insist on being patient and waiting until release are clearly in the minority. While Slay the Spire 2 is very close to feature complete, Subnautica 2 still needs a lot of time in the oven to really live up to expectations.
While chapter based releases have seemingly fallen out of fashion, Deltarune shows this model can still work. While the most recent chapter did not quite live up to the insane hype, Steam reviews are still overwhelmingly positive. I imagine it helps that you only pay for the game once instead of for every chapter individually. With how well the game has sold already, it surprises me a bit that Toby Fox has not just decided to take the money and run. Continued development is a sign of clear passion from the developers who must be driven in large part by intrinsic desire to finish the game, even though they have already earned most of the money it is likely to earn them.
Bombadil
29d ago
Girls typically reach physical sexual maturity (adult secondary sexual characteristics) between the ages of 15 and 17, while boys mature a couple of years later.
His argument would go down much better if he did not say this. It may be objectively the case, but holy shit does it make him sound like a pedophile. It generally reflects quite poorly on people when they sexualize those who are legally and popularly regarded as children.
"An 18 and 16 year old having a sexual relationship should not be discouraged" is one thing. "It is ephebophilia not pedophilia"is quite another and makes it sound like what he really wants is for himself to have sex with 15 year olds without risking punishment.
Bombadil
30d ago
Does evolution actually teach that though? Or is it just a narrative that uses evolutionary terms to make itself sound more plausible?
It is not like you can actually empirically test evopsych theories on real people. All you can do is make theories about evolutionary pressures. Notably, evolution doesn't always lead to the most rational result. Eggs are more expensive than sperm, pregnancy is taxing, and child-rearing requires community support. This implies that women should be wired for stability, and since sleeping around is anything but, there is a rational argument to be made that women would not be wired for this.
But evolutionary theories need to be adjusted to fit reality. In reality young women have a constant sex drive. Not as high as men, but still significant enough to cause some amount of distress if they don't get laid. In reality, a good amount of women cheat on their partners with men they barely know. As barriers to casual relationships have been removed we see more women preferring them. As practical reasons to get into stable relationships with men have been reduced, we see a decrease in desire for stable relationships with men.
In general, if your theory not only fails to predict reality, but actually predicts the opposite, then clearly the theory is wrong.
Bombadil
30d ago
It is a cultural change not a biological one. Long term relationships are valued less, personal freedom is valued more. Everyone wants to extend their adolescence. Women are encouraged to find themselves through short term flings while anyone speaking out against the status quo is seen as controlling (which to be fair is often a reasonable complaint).
I am not familiar with the dating market of twenty years ago, but I would imagine that long term relationships were more highly valued, and regarded as something important you might miss out on if you are too slow. Combine that with fewer options to sleep around and more status loss for doing so.
In the past, women's behavior was policed more closely and they were more heavily encouraged to control themselves. I would argue this, along with them needing a man's income to help care for the kid, caused the perception that they had some internal biological drive to form lifelong monogamous relationships. Just like people in the west take our morals for granted as natural inborn human virtues only to be surprised when they are not shared by immigrants. It turns out that a lot of what we thought was natural actually had to be taught. It was just such an integral part of society that it was never questioned in the first place. Now we are radically changing the things that we teach, and finding out that the natural state of humans - women included - is more base and savage than we thought.
I suspect that finding the right balance between enforcing prosocial behaviors and allowing people maximum personal freedom, while also minimizing authoritarianism, is going to be a major challenge in the future.
Bombadil
30d ago
Bombadil
30d ago
Men also get pissy when their girlfriends are with another man. Yet the people claiming women have an innate drive to be in a relationship usually do not claim the same for men. The normal implication is that men and women are different in this regard. Besides, if you are going to point at women wanting to be in relationships throughout history, I would point to women being unfaithful throughout history. It's not like women are only into the man they are with at any given time.
The way I see it, men and women want to have sex with people they find attractive, but get jealous when their partner has sex with someone else. The committed relationship is a social construct that enforces norms around these expectations, and lets people know their partner is not with anybody else at the cost of only being with one person at a time. But it is not instinctual. People commit infidelity all the time, and those who don't still have to control themselves in the face of temptation.
I am basing this off personal experience. When speaking with the women I meet at my university as well as male friends with girlfriends, a few tings very quickly became clear to me.
- A majority of the single young women seem to enjoy going out a few times per month and find a new person to have sex with.
- The one pushing for a relationship is usually the man. And doing so too early is actually an "ick" for several women. A friends with benefits catching feelings is grounds for ending the relationship.
- This ties into the point above, but sleeping around even while dating is absolutely a thing. Even if she is not having sex with the guy she is seeing, she may still have friends with benefits that she is fucking until the relationship becomes official.
- There is absolutely an expectation that you can sleep around in your early to mid twenties and only build a family once they are done with studying and partying. It is not uncommon for women to want to extend this part of their lives and postpone family formation for as long as possible. Even those who want to be mothers are in no rush to find a man.
I don't quite understand where the idea that women have a "drive to be in a relationship" comes from. From where I am standing it does not look like young men are manipulating innocent maidens with promises of commitment when they actually just want to fuck. If anything, young women seem somewhat afraid of commitment and tend to prefer the men that are less serious, finding solace in knowing that they won't have to worry about the responsibilities of a relationship.
As far as I can tell, the exceptions from the above consist mostly of women who were in relationships since high school, and women who are largely not interested in dating and romance in the first place (too anxious, focused on studies, etc.). There are also some who clearly prefer long term relationships, but even they tend to sleep around for a bit after a breakup.
This does not contradict what I wrote. People are not in relationships, so sex is limited to casual encounters and booty calls. It takes a lot less effort to fuck when you live together or at least hang out often, which is usually reserved for more committed relationships.
Bombadil
1mo ago
I think it has more to do with society telling women to surrender to their base instincts when it comes to sex. It makes sense that straight up encouraging women to sleep around in their twenties would cause stable relationships to plummet which then reduces sex and fertility rates across the population.
I really don't think it is that complicated. Young women seem to deliberately shy away from romance and commitment, instead preferring more casual hook ups and friends with benefits. Society broadly encourages this. Even parents seem fine with it, not wanting to dictate how their daughters should use their bodies. This naturally results in family formation being delayed which then leads to fewer children overall.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Liberals would say the problem is the human smugglers. But they have no authority over them and don't want to shoot them, so they have no influence over what to do. People choose to go with them because the smugglers tell them lies about how easy their life will become, and the business model is lucrative enough that this won't change if we decide to stop saving people. So saving them becomes the moral thing to do.
Bombadil
1mo ago
You need to get them on a boat/plane and then off the vehicle upon arrival. The immigrants are not cooperative and will not consent to do this, so you have to force them somehow. Threats of shooting them won't fly for western audiences though, so you will have to hope the threat of imprisonment is enough.
Then there is the matter of the host country which does not want to take responsibility for its citizens. It might block your vehicle from landing, and there will be no attempts made to stop the immigrants from exiting the country once again.
So easier said than done. I guess you could give them a parachute and push them out of a plane. Although that might be more expensive than just keeping them imprisoned in their host country.
Bombadil
1mo ago
I don't see why women would want the status quo to change though. They benefit in the short term, and the long term damage is hard to anticipate. Especially so when anyone trying to educate about the downsides is shouted down as "attempting to control women's bodies". In a democracy, we do need the consent of both genders for a norm change to work.
It is also not entirely clear to me that there is a better system to swap to. The old one led to what we have now after all, and it seems fairly undeniable that a lot of people used to end up in bad marriages with people who didn't care much about them regardless.
Bombadil
1mo ago
But unfortunately I can't readily point towards a more effective strategy that he could implement on his lonesome.
You don't solve societal problems on your lonesome. You adapt to them. In the modern dating landscape, you either lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all, or you reach a mindset where you are okay with staying a virgin for a long time, potentially forever.
Neither is easy, obviously. If you are of a sufficiently analytical mind, you can't just turn that off on command and genuinely believe that everything is fine. But the other option is a degree of enlightenment that is likely only attainable by the few.
Much more likely then that you just kinda suffer from a lack of romance, sex, and community for the rest of your days.
That said, I think most of this pain will be directed inwards. It is very hard to do stuff in the real world when your need for community is unmet. You just don't have the energy. Much easier to rage on the internet. If anything this will probably just lead to more self harm amongst men, which I doubt society will care much about.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Perhaps this is a sign of poor understanding of international relations on my part, but I would assume that you would at least want to present a shared front with your allies during formal negotiations. Make sure you have pressured your ally before negotiations if need be, so that you know ahead of time that they will officially support the deal you sign.
It seems that Trump just skips this entirely. He simply ignores his allies during negotiations, then expects them to support a decision that blindsided them completely.
Bombadil
1mo ago
This has been an overall issue with the Trump administration. The assumption that any decision made by the US is law, and that everyone else will follow regardless of whether they were present at negotiations or not.
You saw it as US reduced aid to Ukraine, assuming the EU would follow suit.
Next during peace negotiations when America decided to not invite Ukraine, and instead assumed they would acquiesce to whatever decision the two great powers came up with.
In the initial phases of the Iran war, Trump assumed the rest of NATO would help. Even though it was not in their interest and they had not been involved with invasion plans in the first place. This war was notably a surprise for almost all interested parties, yet the US expected help as if they had all agreed on a plan together.
Now you have these Iran peace talks in which one of the parties to the war is not involved. Then everyone acts surprised when said party ignores the terms of a deal they never agreed to.
Bombadil
1mo ago
I think there is a spiritual argument in favor of precise execution of a specific movement over speed or efficiency. Developing extreme skill in a very limited domain is the point. This also serves to train your discipline and focus. You need to stay present and on task until the competition is over, otherwise you will do the wrong movements.
Besides, sports imply competition and competition implies a ruleset, right? You need to draw the line for what is and isn't appropriate somewhere. Why not do it like this?
Bombadil
1mo ago
Obviously, no military in the world could prevent a determined US from taking Greenland. The cost however, of taking it by force changed massively for the US. The threat of sanctions from a combined EU + potential war with the other NATO countries made Trump see military action as no longer worth it.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Again, completely blown out of proportion. They wanted to buy it, the talk of invasion was media and politicians hyperventilating.
It is always interesting to me that two people can see the same event unfold and come to wildly different conclusions. As far as I can tell, Trump clearly indicated he would take Greenland by force if necessary, and only backed down because several NATO countries showed support for Denmark. Had they not done that, had Denmark stood alone, no alliance would have kept the American military from waltzing in and taking the island.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Even without Ukraine, there is the following:
- Punitive tariffs.
- Threatening the invasion of Greenland.
- Invading Iran without first discussing with the EU nations, causing economic damage and chaos without even giving them a chance to prepare.
- Having it in the national security strategy that they want to create regime change in Europe.
You can see how these points might come off like a betrayal of sorts, right? And this took me like 10 minutes to think of. I am sure there is more stuff that I am forgetting about.
Bombadil
1mo ago
If Israel is our ally, our greatest ally, then they can't be allowed to do this to us. They can't insult and undermine the clear foreign policy of the POTUS and be allowed to do so.
Replace "Israel" with "USA", you funnily enough get how it has felt to be a European for the past year and a half. Trump has instituted an era in which alliances are no longer treated with the sanctity they deserve. If betraying your ally has marginal benefit to you, then that is the done thing.
While I am not in favor of the war continuing, part of me does see this as karmic justice. Finally America gets to know how it feels to be shafted by your "greatest ally".
Bombadil
1mo ago
I think you are taking it for granted that most men have access to this abundance in the first place. That is a political choice. It is absolutely possible for the majority of resources to be controlled by relatively few individuals that everyone else must choose to either suck up to, or accept starvation.
That is one hell of a chainsmoker.
I consider this a sign of great progress personally. The fact that your trajectory in life is not determined by society the moment that you are born, but is largely down to the qualities you develop and the choices that you make throughout your life, is not something to be taken for granted.
Granted, there is still a strong correlation between lineage and life trajectory. Upbringing matters a lot. But the simple fact that society won't actively stop you from trying to break out of your social class is huge.
That looks more like an attempt at being as charitable as possible. But even through this lens, the officers still look bad. They are clearly not doing their job properly. They end the altercation, yes, but she is also arresting an innocent while letting the criminals run away.
More options
Context Copy link