@Nantafiria's banner p

Nantafiria


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:01:21 UTC

				

User ID: 246

Nantafiria


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:01:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 246

now we're just arguing severity

Of course we're arguing severity, that was the point from the start. Cheating is a bad thing in their eyes, just not the very worst.

the only reason they bring it up is to tar their opponent

Yes, they are 2023 journalists. Their political enemies got them cheap ammunition with which to tar them. Of course they're gonna do that.

I think it's pretty ironic you are accusing me of trying to score cheap political points, since that is the only reason the article exists

It's not ironic. No, I expect better of you than I do of journalists. I expect better of everyone in this place! If that's the bar you're holding yourself to, I think you truly and genuinely need to consider the way you engage with people

Yeah, I'm hoping to find out why there's a reason to doubt that.

I'm not dense enough to think the people are Vice think everyone should be polyamorous, into swinging, as well as cuckoldry. For what it's worth, I don't think you are either.

The median Vice employee, let alone reader, thinks breaking your wife's (or husband's) trust is bad; no sacred union is required, for nothing is sacred to begin with. If that means you both go into marriage thinking any of these three rightwing boogeymen is okay, then power to them, so says the Vice liberal. If you drop it on someone out of nowhere, cheat on them, betray what was a generic relationship? Not so power to them, shitty move, so says the Vice liberal.

This isn't very complicated. This isn't news to you, either: I shouldn't have to spell it out. I don't know why you'd imply that this isn't obvious if you weren't trying to score tediously cheap points, so if you will, please tell me what the point of this has been. The ranks of Vice aren't full of people who think cheating on your wife is totally awesome, and to twist around so it kinda-sorta might look that way is tiresome. Not clever. Not enlightening. Just tiresome.

This is a wonderful post. Thank you for making it; it's the sorts of beauty that makes me glad to be at home in this place, no matter the other material that comes and goes.

I have no incredibly deep other thoughts. The baseball card anecdote amused me, a little; a Dutch YA book includes a similar quip. An old, old man talks about the park ranger's folly: by fencing off pretty areas, telling kids not to climb trees, and being a general menace, he kills the sorts of enjoyment that drives kids into wanting to be park rangers. It's funny how this sorts of attitude can be seen across so many years and places, genuinely.

I'm sure that may be true, and I'm still sure its people still by and large find cheating on your wife a bad thing. Not as bad as being part of the enemy tribe, perhaps, but 'not as bad as' does not 'totally okay' equate.

Because this is his home, as it is for many people.

Why?

Not the employees or readers of Vice, who will agree with you that cheating on your wife is bad.

This sorts of thing is some reversed 'republicans pounce' in action and it is every bit as pathetic. Of course this is a story. You don't need 'senseless purity spirals' to consider cheating on your wife and abusing your authority as a literal hero bad things.

I think they'd say whatever. I also think they don't find people very different from them interesting. At all. They find them vaguely exotic at best, and revulsing at worst. People don't value what you call creative, interesting, and intellectually stimulating very much at all. The median Mottizen might, and it reinforces how far from normal the people here tend to be

Do you reckon that includes Ashlael and I, or am I correct to assume this is a whole bunch of hot air?

You are moving the goalposts. There is an audience for the products of supposedly lively, creative, intellectually stimulating spaces. Participating in them proper is and always has been a minimal affair.

'I can easily see' is the very weakest phrasing known to God and man alike. Is that all you've got?

They don't understand that in order to get lively, creative, intellectually stimulating conversation

Who's they? How big exactly do you reckon the audience for these things is?

Australian democracy seems to work just fine, best I can tell, in the sense that they are getting exactly the sorts of government they deserve. This isn't always very nice, but if nothing else, it is absolutely just.

Stereotypical frat kids and the media they consume are not particularly feminist, but they still will find casual sex all kinds of awesome. The issue runs pretty deep.

That may or may not be so, and it still means nobody is going to jail for suggesting a date.

This is an interesting post, and a good one, but the most interesting explanation is seldom the right one. The world is often boring, and I'm betting that it is boring in this case as well: lots of men just aren't able to keep it in their pants at a whiff of power, fame, or money. So it goes.

Then you can say that, rather than list an anecdote that doesn't look very related and leave your post at that.

Anyway.

Yeah, people lie. Lots. Oldest problem in the world. I'd appreciate if we might all be sincere as much as the next autist does, but we've got to live with the world we have. So it goes.

Okay, and?

Iā€™m not sure markets are made for men

Of course they are. Otherwise, men wouldn't engage in them.

It is difficult to teach someone to know something, when his argument depends on him not knowing it.

I'm not ignorant of it, it's just not my problem. I'm not American, and uniquely American (or Anglo, but I mostly repeat myself) issues aren't all that interesting to me.

This besides even the fact that companies engage in plenty anti-competitive behavior of their own, mind. If but a fraction of anti-union sentiment went that way, we'd have a much nicer world indeed. Instead, we get what's both good for the goose and gander. So it goes.

You're basically asking that a low-skill worker at a company with high margins get paid more than a low-skill worker at a company with low margins, right?

That's how things do work, yes, at a macro scale. American waiters are paid more than their Cambodian colleagues not because they are more skilled, but because their employers are richer and mostly can't afford to pay Cambodian wages.

Still no government needed there, no matter how much you insist it's OBVIOUSLY true that's how it goes.