@Botond173's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC


User ID: 473



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 473

Putting politics aside and not having seen the new movie, I wonder how usual it was for young military officers, or politicians for that matter, to marry widows older than themselves who were also known to be promiscuous - because supposedly the new movie focuses a lot on Napoleon's first marriage. I can imagine that there were lots of older widows around after the Revolutionary Wars and the Great Terror, but I'm pretty sure such marriages were still not the norm.

Before or after retiring from public service?

To identify the strongest evidence there is, I suggest going back to the comment that started this all: "There is an unstated (on the progressive side) premise among all people that casual sex is a bad deal for women and devalues or dishonors them in some way". The fact - and I think it's safe to treat this as fact at this point - that average, mainstream liberal women, and I imagine many of their male hangers-on as well share this view and are willing to voice it, although mostly anonymously - again, we're talking about average normies, not incels - says a lot.

Considering that we're in an aging society dominated by boomers, where ageism is real, I don't find it surprising at all.

one Stuart Seldowitz, former humanitarian diplomacy consultant, National Security Council member and deputy director of the US State Department’s Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs

And, I suppose, in the fourth best possible world, such goons would never get promoted to such positions.

This is the story I assume OP is talking about.

The extent to which this campaign seems to be astroturfed is almost bizarre.

O9A is very obviously a CIA honey trap.

Evo psych offers a simple explanation for this. For men with little or no status, engaging in high-risk, high-reward activities makes objective sense. For women in general, it's the opposite that make sense.

surplus elites.

The low income high status people

I think it'd be more accurate and simple to just call them intellectuals.

You just can't compare the 'material conditions' of a miner in Lancashire in 1905, or a worker in a steel mill in Pittsburgh in 1890, to the conditions of a modern 'American proletarian', like a nurse, a content marketing manager, a mid-level employee of the local municipal government, or even a skilled blue collar worker like a modern steel industry worker.

Well - you actually can. If one thing they all have in common is that their only source of income is their wage/salary i.e. their own labour is their only means of survival, and they have (practically) no savings, no inherited wealth, no silver, no gold, no stocks, no livestock, own no land, and don't own any real estate besides (maybe) the one they live in, then yes, objectively speaking, according to socialist terminology, they are the proletariat. Whether they use smartphones or not, what color their collars are, whether they perform physical labour or not, is of no importance.

Last day, an homicide made by a men towards his girlfriend happened in Italy

Can you please briefly describe the context? I suspect it may be relevant here.

5 years ago an interview with air marshal Arthur Harris from 1978, originally created as additional learning material for Royal Air Force cadets, and of course restricted material as such, was made public, and interestingly he addresses this specific issue. His response basically was: as many deaths as militarily necessary, stemming from the main consideration that the French didn't fight well at all when they had to in 1940, so trying to spare their lives out of some sort of benevolent political consideration is foolish.


(at the 31:45 mark, for example)

To give a concrete example, he did oppose proposals to carpet-bomb the town of Bordeaux, but only because he judged that such an attack would have zero military value.

And when you were a little child, you too were a burden, nothing more than a little shit machine, yet your parents elected to take it on instead of handing you over to CPS so the government could take it instead.

Or they handed you over to the kindergarten and then elementary school + after-school, which is basically the equivalent to the elderly being handed over to retirement homes. And this has been the social norm for many decades.

I'd argue that lockdowns, in the way they were designed and enforced, didn't even end up protecting the elderly.

You're describing those elderly that are still in good health, can still walk, have clear and intact minds etc. They aren't really relevant to this discussion. There's a large spectrum between being completely healthy and being on your deathbed.

It’s not that I disagree with that assumption. But the (supposedly severe) shortage of retirement home staff in the US surely isn’t affecting just the childless, the careless and the unserious, the unconcerned etc. The current social reality is atomization and geographical family dislocation/dissolution. We can decry it as degenerate and harmful etc., but it’ll still be the social reality for many people in the future. You can be a loving, responsible mother and grandmother, and still you’re likely to end up in a situation where your children and grandchildren are unable to look after you regularly even if they want to, for whatever reason.

I doubt the problems with elderly care are that much different between the US or South Korea / Japan.

You need to define what "worth a damn" means.

Not having to lie in bed for hours waiting for the Filipino nurse to come and wash you after soiling yourself. Not lying on the cold floor at an isolated part of the retirement home after accidentally tripping and falling, because nobody comes to help. Not going hungry all the time when you're so frail lying in bed that you cannot sit up and eat, because nobody helps out by feeding you. Not living in complete solitude and social isolation. I'm referring to this sort of stuff, just off the top of my head.

In last week’s thread there was extensive discussion on the retirement home employee shortage in the US. It made me ask myself: is it fair to say that elderly care in the US and Western countries in general is based on the unstated rule that you as a frail and elderly person pretty much only deserve to have a quality of life worth a damn if you have loving, caring children and grandchildren living nearby, visiting you regularly and looking after you if needed? That is, whatever system of care that is set up is not designed and should not be designed to basically prop you up and coddle you otherwise? It may sound cynical or too far-fetched to say it out loud, but looking at this issue from the outside, it’d explain many things. I imagine this is a general rule most Boomers also take as given, as they grew up in an age when childlessness and family dissolution/dislocation was much less normal than today.

It's a misunderstanding on my part then. I thought the original comment was about retirement home employees and hospital staff in general.

Can you elaborate please?

That's understandable, but whatever alternative will be available to you, or to most people in that situation, at that point will probably be even worse anyway.

Society has kicked families out of their homes

Phrasing it that way is a tad too extreme and simplistic, I'd say.

Anyway, one reason I find this news a bit strange is due to one argument I've heard from normies about this, namely that so many elderly have supposedly died from COVID in nursing homes that those've become less crowded than before. To be fair, it does sound like BS.

I'd add that the 2021-22 period was also one of uncertainty for many service sector workers because governments promised that restrictions will be eased soon, but nobody knew if this'll last, or there'll be a policy reversal due to a new panic once the data arrives about supposedly growing COVID rates and whatnot. I'd assume many people decided that they can't just sit around waiting for times to get better sometime in the future, and left the sector.

a lot of the hospitality industry laid off staff

But why would they do that? Genuine question.