Botond173
11mo ago
I suppose you can say that it was an invasion 'only' targeting the ruling dynasty and not the nation as a whole.
Botond173
11mo ago
Just to pose an uninformed question (because I can't be bothered), to what extent is 'Britishness' as a common identity even authentic now that the empire has been gone for decades, considering that the only commonality I can name among the English, the Welsh and the Scots (besides them sharing the same island as their homeland - let's ignore Ulster for a moment) was that all of them took part in maintaining the empire, with or without arms, and thus considered themselves 'British' in the sense of assuming an imperialist/colonialist identity? Ever since these 3 nations have formed a single polity, building an empire is the only thing they've ever known. As far as I can tell, they have nothing else in common, and since 1945, this is also gone. I guess Scottish aspirations to political independence prove that, as do the regional (if that's the correct word) results of the Brexit referendum.
Botond173
11mo ago
What else are we supposed to do, invent all the local ideologies and policy points ourselves? There's just 5,5 million of us.
I'm sure multiple ideologies and political theories originate from polities even less populous than that.
Botond173
11mo ago
I suggest you put yourself in the shoes of a lower-class or middle-class member of the Korean precariat who leads a usual crummy existence as a parent. Not even trying to send your child to an idol audition is, I suppose, similar to not even sending him/her to cram school i.e. not even bothering to give him/her that very marginal shot of enrolling to one of the top national universities. It means that you’ve already internalized that your child will inevitably grow up to be another lousily paid miserable wagecuck in the hellworld of late-stage capitalism, just another nameless prole. You’ve already accepted this reality, even though your child is not even an adolescent. And if you happen to have two children, you and everybody around you already knows that you won’t be able to afford all the cram school curses, summer camps, private tutors etc. for both of them, which means you’ve condemned one or maybe two more children in the country to the prole life.
This is not a decision that is easy to live with.
Botond173
11mo ago
In a society that isn't demographically imploding, young people either have children, or are in committed relationships which will produce children in the near future, so they don't have time and energy to invest into braindead stuff like K-Pop fandom.
Botond173
11mo ago
Indeed it's more complicated. Generally I think that demographic collapse is a vicious circle i.e. when children are generally scarce, it erodes one's inclination to have children.
Botond173
11mo ago
I'll not dispute this detailed writeup, I'll just add that yes, what I wrote is pessimistic in the sense that, based on what I've read and seen, the current reality for the middle-class and lower-class in developed economies is that it's increasingly difficult to avoid sliding down to the ranks of the precariat, and also to leave it. Basically one needs to master marketable and specialized skills in order to reliably secure a middle-class lifestyle.
Botond173
11mo ago
According to the linked Wikipedia article, it seems it was a simple case of cancelling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bachelor_(American_season_25)#Controversy
Botond173
11mo ago
Most migrants aren't committing violence, and it does seem cruel to kick out people who have been living somewhere for years or even decades.
They aren't likely to apply these two particular principles fairly and even-handedly though, in my experience. It's well to be skeptical about this.
Botond173
11mo ago
But we still have a large amount of African Americans who have failed to ever adapt to America.
Unfortunately they didn't arrive as voluntary immigrants though, which is a relevant difference. And Native Americans don't exist as an immigrant minority either, but as dispossessed and defeated aborigines.
Botond173
11mo ago
That's an incorrect comparison. Most of the men who work office cubicle jobs do so because there's no other way for them to make a living. This doesn't apply to insta/tiktok/etc models.
Botond173
11mo ago
I'd be happier with billboards reminding women their primary worth is as wives and mothers.
Which would very obviously prove to be even more triggering.
Trying to pander to women's desire to feel empowered and justified by doing whatever they decide to do is a losing game.
Botond173
11mo ago
I ask you not to move the goalposts. Nobody was discussing such other requirements here.
Yes, I maintain that most of the women modeling full-time on tiktok/insta etc. could also earn a living by doing mundane crappy office cubicle jobs or service jobs etc. What they're doing is a lifestyle choice, not a necessity. This differentiates them from the average man working that same type of job (to earn a living, and not for any ulterior motive), because he usually doesn't have that option.
Botond173
11mo ago
As your comment was a response to a response to the original comment, I’d say you weren’t the one to place the goalposts. You expressed your disagreement with @Butlerian, who expressed his disagreement with the claim in this particular ad that the US beer industry used to put women in bikinis, implying that they were somehow coerced or manipulated into posing for ad photoshoots in bikinis. This is where the goalposts are.
Let’s clarify a few things. If you want to discuss the human requirement to find a high-value mate, then go ahead, but I ask you to recognize that this is a completely different issue. Because it is.
Also, I’ll claim that differentiating “activities engaged in grudgingly [in exchange for money]” from "activities engaged in out of purely economic necessity [that is, in exchange for money]" is needlessly pedantic and pointless.
And also, please recognize the very crucial and clear difference between male office cubicle workers and instathots, namely that the latter are choosing an economic option which does not exist for the former.
Botond173
11mo ago
I'll ask you to explain how "doomsters" and "scaremongers" about immigration were proven wrong historically.
Botond173
11mo ago
I'm pretty sure that building "tornado-resistant houses" is not an approach that is viable on a larger scale. We're talking about tornadoes, after all.
Also, I assume that wiping out mosquitoes would necessitate using lots of chemical pesticides, similar to DDT, for example. Chemicals with side effects etc. Who would stand for that?
Botond173
11mo ago
If you're not a member of a functioning, cohesive community, it indeed means that you will not be shamed out of, say, "wasting" natural gas or firewood. But it also means that, for example, you will not be shamed out of being/becoming a misogynistic transphobe incel Nazi Putin fan. And if, say, you're a single heterosexual woman looking for a mate, you won't have a social circle at all which might assist you in finding an "eligible" man. And the list goes on. Ideas have consequences.
Botond173
11mo ago
Children aren't worth it. To a childless person in a low-fertility atomized modern society, the benefits of having a child are either invalid (bloodline, dynasty, demographic competition with muh enemies) or unobservable, or dependent on other children in their environment; but costs are obvious and ruthlessly reinforced in public imagination by all responsible people, who only wish to warn you of the potential pitfalls.
Also, roughly up until the Second Industrial Revolution, or whatever it's called, children normally were net economic producers after reaching the age of 8 or so.
Botond173
10mo ago
People are reluctant to come across as racists by posting the unvarnished and full truth about various Third World places being utterly shitty.
Botond173
10mo ago
Well, if it's that easy, why are there unhappy married people? How do you explain divorce? People fall in love, they have kids, they fall out of love, they separate, everyone winds up bitter.
The qualifier "someone of good temperament" very obviously does the heavy lifting in the original comment. People of good temperament don't become bitter and their marriages don't fail. Or something.
Marry young(ish) to someone of good temperament, have a reasonable number of children (three or more), work a job you can somewhat stand, have some kind of spiritual life. Above all, tend to a dense circle of friends and family who you trust and who trust you, who live nearby and who you see often. Save a little money if you can. Try to do good by those who care about you.
Do you apply this to women as well?
EDIT: based on 2rafa's past comments about gender differences and the Red Pill that I've read here and on the old subreddit, I'm not convinced that she actually thinks that marrying young and having 3-4 children* is the recipe for fulfilment and happiness for young single women. On the other hand, I can totally see why she'd give that advice to this online community here, which is mostly composed of men. In other words, I can understand why she'd argue that this is sound advice for single men who want to fulfill their male sexual imperative in a way that benefits them long-term.
*Just to point out one thing: having three or more healthy children as a woman implies in the context of current society that you enter a long-term relationship with your future husband at 18-20 years of age and have your first child 2-4 years later, when you're convinced that the relationship is stable enough. Who would actually even give teenage girls such advice openly these days?
Objectively speaking, how many BLM-adjacent rioters could have been charged with that after 2020?
More options
Context Copy link