@Goodguy's banner p

Goodguy


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 02 04:32:50 UTC

				

User ID: 1778

Goodguy


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 02 04:32:50 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1778

Normally rich people never get any more than a very very minor amount of sympathy when they die, not just on Reddit but anywhere, unless they are entertainers (including athletes). There are rare exceptions, for example extremely beloved politicians.

But by and large, the public simply will not have sympathy for a rich non-entertainer who dies young. This is not just a Reddit thing, it's almost universal, and not just in the US, but across the world.

So the lack of sympathy for this particular man, I think, doesn't necessarily mean much.

As for OnlyFans, it is to porn what Uber is to taxis. It cuts out the previous middleman and replaces it with a computerized middleman.

I think it's probably a good thing overall for wannabe porn actresses to be able to make porn in their bedrooms without needing pimps or producers. The people who are losing out are the pimps and producers, but I imagine that their reputation for being amoral is likely deserved, so I figure that the benefit to the girls probably outweighs the loss to the pimps and producers.

I am very confident that most women on OnlyFans are not motivated to be there by instinct any more than an office worker is motivated by instinct to go to the office in the morning.

Consider that perhaps you usually don't notice the feminists who don't just blindly cheer for feminism as a monolith, yet they exist. I'm one.

And if you think that I'm just politically biased, well, I would make the same argument about "the right" as I would about "feminism". That is, it's a very diverse group. In my case, I loathe some ideas that come under that term and am fine with others.

I'm sure that "we just want equality" is a Trojan horse for some feminists. Not for others.

Men and women currently have do legal equality in the United States. However, that does not meant that feminists whose primary concern is legal equality have just vanished. I sometimes argue online against people who would like to get rid of that equality. So I am a feminist whose primary concern is legal equality, yet in that capacity I still find things to do.

Feminism is really diverse. There are kinds of feminism that revolve around hating men and there are also kinds of feminism that just support legal equality between men and women. Supporting legal equality for women is not a hate ideology.

"feminism" means a lot of very different things. Do you actually loathe feminism, or do you just loathe certain kinds of feminism?

I am not putting them on the same moral plane. I am pointing out that depicting the US vs. Iran conflict as analogous to polite society vs. violent schizophrenics would be an exaggeration of the actual degree of difference.

The violent schizophrenics on the train example isn't a very good one. The US vs Iran isn't a nice peaceful law-abiding society vs violent schizophrenics, it's a somewhat less violent and much stronger schizophrenic versus a somewhat more violent and much weaker schizophrenic. And it's unclear to what extent the much stronger schizophrenic is actually substantially different in willingness to beat up innocent bystanders than the weaker one is - to some extent, the difference in willingness is an effect of the difference in strength. It's quite possible that if the stronger schizophrenic was backed into a corner and desperate, he would start beating the shit out of civilians with just as little care as the weaker one has ever displayed. Furthermore, the stronger schizophrenic has only displayed this kind of concern recently. A few decades ago (Cold War) the stronger schizophrenic was regularly helping his schizophrenic friends beat and kill random innocent people out of fear that if he didn't do this, those random people would turn to the other strong schizophrenic across the street for protection.

If feminism is making women on average less happy, that is not necessarily a strike against feminism. There is also freedom to consider. If freedom makes you less happy on average, that does not necessarily mean that you should do away with freedom. Perhaps it can mean that, in some cases, but not as a general rule.

Children generally become less happy at first when parents stop just providing everything to them and start to demand more adult behavior. That does not necessarily mean that it is bad to at some point start to demand more adult behavior from children.

An adult man who makes his own living is probably less happy on average than a sheltered boy who has everything provided for him. That does not necessarily mean that it is better to be a sheltered boy than it is to be an adult man.

It is not surprising that as women went from having a sort of middle status between children and adult men to having legal freedom equal to men and being expected to make their own economic decisions, they also became less happy in some ways and developed various new stresses different from the stresses that they had before. It is especially not surprising given that this is a new development in history, with few precedents. So there is no guidebook.

But this does not mean that women's liberation is a bad thing. In any case, the journey of women's liberation has only begun. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

Well, there's a very good reason other than physical fitness for why societies tend to try to get men into the military at young ages like 18.

It's signing up to kill people on government orders and potentially die yourself, to protect a society that on an institutional level barely knows that you exist and will do relatively little for you, compared to what it asks of you, if you ever fall on hard times.

It is an easier sell to young naive reckless men than it is to men who have more life experience.