Crowstep
7hr ago
Do you have any evidence for your description, beyond your own impression of what you've seen? Because by definition, you are not meeting either the men or the women who are not going out. And would I be right to assume that you belong to one of the groups you are talking about (i.e. men who go out to meet women and get rejected)? Because you can see how that might colour your perceptions.
Because come on, it would be a remarkable coincidence if this civilisation-destroying technological combo (the internet plus smartphones) had massive effects on women's approach to dating but no effects on mens' approach to dating whatsoever, and in spite of all the evidence showing that it is affecting both sexes in more or less the same way and in the same magnitude.
Crowstep
12hr ago
That isn't borne out by the data. Women socialise in person more than men (although both are seeing massive declines), and screen time is essentially the same for men and women. Among young single people, men are slightly more likely to be 'looking' (67% vs 61%) but I would imagine that reflects the more passive nature of female romance.
Crowstep
16hr ago
It's worth pointint out that it's not not 'our society' (western, anglophone), it's every society. People are just socialising less in person in every country on the planet.
So any advice has to start with this, go outside and talk to people in person.
Crowstep
3d ago
Better than LLMs trained exclusively on Reddit groupthink, that's for sure.
Crowstep
3d ago
Lebanon might pay a very high price for being such a divided society, but for the one guy that gets a guaranteed government office because he's a specific minority, it's a pretty good deal.
Except there aren't any countries, past or current, where Jews have benefitted from the kind of ethno-religious power sharing that we see in Lebanon or Singapore.
Crowstep
3d ago
Can anyone point to a historical (right- or left-) populist movement in a culturally Christian country that didn't eventually turn anti-semitic?
Do the mid-century fascists count as populist? Because if so, the Italian and Spanish fascists weren't antisemitic, as I mentioned. But why are we limiting ourselves to the past? How about basically all the national populist parties in Europe right now? Reform UK isn't antisemitic. The National Rally in France isn't antisemitic. Fidesz in Hungary isn't. Not Brothers of Italy. Nor, of course, is the MAGA movement.
by somewhere around 10x
I would love to see your workings-out for this claim.
There is a long history of homogeneous societies turning on Jews because domestic politics required a scapegoat.
That's pretty much it. They are a market-dominant minority that are distinctive enough to be considered an outgroup but not so distinctive to be considered a fargroup.
Crowstep
3d ago
What does that mean even mean for 'the Jews' to advocate for it? Do they have an international spokesman? Did they take a vote?
Unless of course you mean that you can cherry-pick some examples of left-wing American Jews and conclude that all leftist politics is an invention of the ethnic group you hate?
Crowstep
4d ago
That doesn't make sense. Western countries post-WW2 were much less hostile to Jews than Western countries now. Multiculturalism means a) more Muslims and b) more other foreigners who don't feel post-war guilt about the Holocaust. Aliyah from countries like France is going up as they become more multicultural, as French Jews flee their new Muslim neighbours.
After the establishment of Israel, Middle Eastern Jews fled (or were expelled from) ethnically and religiously diverse countries in order to move to Israel. Diversity means more ethnic conflict overall, which means more ethnic scapegoating of rich groups (i.e. Ashkenazim). Whereas a tiny Jewish population in a homogenous country are much less of a threat.
It's a mistake to overinterpret what happened in Germany. Hitler's rise was driven by Germany's humiliation in WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, and the growing threat of Communism. Other fascist regimes like Italy or Spain were fine with the Jews. Antisemitism was just an idiosyncrasy of Hitler, not a law of history.
'Women and men have different media habits' is obviously not the key part of your argument that I'm addressing, it's that the coupling recession is the fault of women and not the fault of men, contrary to all the actual evidence that both sexes are retreating from the social sphere. The reduction in people coupling up isn't driven by men getting rejected and women doing the rejecting, it's driven by the men and women who aren't going outside at all.
Because from the perspective of forming a relationship, staying at home scrolling Instagram and staying at home playing video games are exactly the same.
I do try and steer away from Bulverism, but this really seems like you're just a guy who has gotten rejected a lot and is bitter about it, and this is driving your explanation of why coupling is decreasing. Am I wrong?
More options
Context Copy link