@Botond173's banner p

Botond173


				

				

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

				

User ID: 473

Botond173


				
				
				

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 473

So after reading of this online trend I decided to look up information on bear attacks in Russia, as I remembered reading that those often become a serious issue on a local level.

There's an interesting tidbit I've found: "Kamchatka brown bears are generally not dangerous to humans, and only 1% of encounters result in attack." (The cited source is a Kamchatka Ecology and Environmental Institute study.)

To be sure, brown bears are no joke, and the Kamchatkan subspecies is even less of a joke: "The Kamchatka brown bear is the biggest brown bear in Eurasia, with a body length of 2.4 m (7.9 ft) to 3 m (9.8 ft) tall on hind legs, and a weight up to at least 650 kg (1,430 lb). It is about the size of the Kodiak bear..."

Anyway, the 1% figure is somewhat surprising and seems to underpin the feminist argument at first sight. However, I'd be very surprised if solitary female-on-male encounters in the woods were statistically as dangerous anywhere in the world.

Isn't hiking/trekking supposed to be a communal/social activity?

I'm sure that's what she tried doing before Mother Nature snuffed her out.

The simple truth is that nobody, either man or woman, should ever go hiking in the woods alone, with or without bears inhabiting those woods, period.

It's also true that no bear will ever falsely accuse you of rape or domestic violence, will never scam you online, will never drag you to divorce court etc.

It's still not advisable though. Getting lost or suffering an injury can have grave consequences in such a situation, especially if there's no cell phone signal.

Fair enough. When I first read it, I didn't notice that the story also entails boning.

That's the point. Fried ice does not and can not exist. It's an old Arab proverb, supposedly.

(If you really want a laugh, turn this technique back on them. Next time you see some twentysomething university student reeking of weed wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt, point out to him that the man in question once asserted “The negro is indolent and lazy, and spends his money on frivolities”.)

It's not only that. It's much more telling that, in fact, every single political endeavor Guevara engaged in on his own initiative was an utter failure with idiotic planning: 1. his ministerial role in Cuba 2. the war in the Congo 3. the war in Bolivia. It's almost comical when you really think about it. Among all the prominent political figures of the 20th Century, he was the biggest loser. Mussolini and Hitler don't even compare.

Okay, but how bad is it really?

Surely bad enough to result in probably the lowest fertility rate anywhere in written history. So yes, pretty bad, I think.

It's worth pointing out though that I can imagine many mainstream Republicans (not those heavily involved in the Christian Right) would also be more or less sympathetic to Sanger's ideas if they actually checked out what those were.

That's not the point. It's a matter of not being careless.

Early 20s reader of The Ethical Slut finally finds the rich foreign gentleman she's been trying to snag. Comes back raving about how the first date was amazing, he must have spent $500 between dinner and the hotel, she's finally found the man of her dreams. A week later he has to go on an international business trip, and stops answering his phone. Oddly, his phone is ringing like it's still in Korea ...

To be fair, this behavior is genuinely puzzling.

It's just the same old shit. They get their "information" about the West from clickbait trash sites, and conclude that Western men are different, when, in fact, men are just men everywhere, and women are just women everywhere. Also, women want fried ice.

Apparently Korean women assume that they are feminist allies, and aren't icky betas, I suppose.

They of course are spinning it as the eventual chickens coming home to roost from having men that do zero child rearing and housework and also having the women work outside the home too (which is what they wanted!).

Yes, it's what they wanted, but without social dislocation and other unintended consequences (heh). That is, I'm sure what feminist women generally assumed back in 1970 or so was that men will be OK with picking up the slack when their wives and girlfriends start abandoning their restrictive gender norms i.e. men will be willing to make dinner, look after the kids, go on parental leave etc. and women will like it.

I can also imagine they genuinely believed they finally found a message that resonates with black churchgoers.

Yes.

I'm in fact not American.

Apparently such time-wasting is also the norm among Chinese wives.

I'd say the decisive factor was the armistice in 1953, and the Americans not leaving. The war was never terminated in a clear manner, and was instead transformed into the mess that persists to this day, with the DMZ and so on. Had the North Koreans been capable enough to successfully and swiftly reunify the country through force, as it happened in Vietnam, Korea today would be a more or less normally functioning, average Asian nation, as Vietnam is. This'd be preferable to the current situation. One consequence of American military presence was the widening exposure of the populace to American cultural concepts, such as radical feminism. Also, there wouldn't be any Sarah Jeongs in the US.

Another factor was the assassination of President Park Chung Hee in 1979, which the Americans probably had some role in by either abetting it or supporting it. If there was one South Korean leader after 1953 who had both the willingness and ability to turn the country into a more or less normally functioning Asian nation without the current social dystopia of implemented cyberpunk, it was definitely him. If given 5 or 10 more years, it might have worked. But it was not to be, and he was replaced by a stooge of Washington.

I don't know. But that's what I consider plausible by looking at the one relevant historical parallel, Vietnam.

how Darwin and Margaret Sanger were racists

I'd look at those separately as they're just lame-ass attempts at the DR3 narrative.

To emphasize the point, men in their cohort who enter the workforce had their mandatory military service counted as work experience and so enter at a higher pay level.

Well, there's a rather self-evident political option to remedy this.

Buying a house is a precondition to marrying under Korean social norms.

Is there any society where owning a house/apartment is not generally considered necessary before marriage?