OracleOutlook
πΊπΈ Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
It's likely that in 100 years, China and the US will have the same number of people. It doesn't seem too weird to me to say, "despite this temporary blip in Chinese population, I would rather have the US remain the world leader for the duration of this time period."
My father would regularly take us out to a burrito place after swim practice, especially if my mom was out pet sitting for someone. Because it was getting late and we were hungry and he's the man so he only cooks fancy meals on special occasions not dinnerslop. This was before Chipolte was as big as it is now, but it was basically the same concept - and affordable.
And we'd get take-out cheese pizza weekly on Fridays because we're Cathoilc.
It used to be that McDonalds and Carls Jr and other fast food things were affordable to someone in the middle class. Not every day, but weekly. And a monthly sit down restaurant on birthdays or other lesser holidays.
My parents would also comment that when they were kids they couldn't afford meat every day and that we were lucky. And so maybe my kids are better off than that. Though in the last few years we've had a lot of intentionally meatless weeks, now that I think of it.
The standard of living rose. Maybe only a handful of generations got to feel it, but for a few decades things actually were quite good. And now they are declining. Maybe that decline is to a baseline that's still pretty good. But a certain demographic sees the decline in their own lifetime.
When you tell someone as they're making it, "Add this, add that" they don't know when you'll stop and they don't want a tiny burrito with just a line of chicken and rice and no other stuffing. So they put in more as they go but then get overstuffed.
When someone sees up front, "Oh, they want guac" it doesn't matter that the guac is $2 add on, they are mentally subtracting the beans and beef that would have taken up that volume and create a more "normal" burrito.
Many states would get income tax if data centers were actually employing people locally, many cities get sales tax if sales were made in the city, etc.
The point is that money is being made in ways that don't really benefit the people closest to it. The incentives are all wrong.
That statement will not be taken kindly in polite society.
That is a fairly recent phenomenon. 20 years ago you'd be free to say something like that about homosexuality without any problems or logical contradictions detected. It's actually historically odd that we are able to suppress those kind of statements now for homosexuality and I don't know if it will last.
The problem is party X is impacted - by electrical infrastructure upgrades whose costs are often spread throughout the community, by construction blocking traffic and making noise, by the eyesore on the way to work. There are concerns about water usage, which might not be based on facts but the impression a lot of party X has is that their water pressure could decrease and there's nothing they can do about it.
And in return they get.... maybe five janitorial jobs while the bulk of the "new jobs" go to people on the coasts. And a construction crew who will likely be lead by people out of town and will hire less-skilled local labor for two years before trapezing away with those paychecks.
And the taxes, how do they tax the data centers? If a data center in Ohio is responsible for a billion of dollars of sales made in California, who gets that tax money? What is the tax revenue of a data center after its built?
Maybe someone would be ok with these problems if they felt like they were contributing to a better future, if they thought everyone was benefiting in some way. But if they honestly believe these things are making everything worse, they are not worth the sacrifice.
Consider the possibility that people in small towns have a pride. Being the home of a GM factory was a source of positive identity and worth some sacrifices for the greater good. Being the home of a world-destroying machine mind is not.
I mean, if it came up in a conversation and I was BFFs enough or rude enough...
It's a moot point for me because my personal beliefs is that it is indeed immoral to be immodest and to tempt others to unchastity. But I don't see a contradiction between "I think it's disgusting and don't like people who engage in the practice, but I don't find it immoral and it's fine for people in my society to engage in this practice."
Maybe the same is true the gender-flipped way around as well, but I genuinely don't see that happen.
It's called a Dad bod.
Women might be able to recognize that different people have different preferences. HereAndGone might not have a moral objection to fanservice in anime, which is indicated by "it's fine." But she and other women can dislike it. Some people might really like eating oysters and that's fine, no moral objection to eating oysters. But don't expect me to be comfortable sitting at a table with people slurping them down.
I don't know why people here see a contradiction here.
The phenomenon I seek to explain is:
Why "It's fine" for a guy to like fanservice.
Why "You shouldn't expect a woman to just sit there and not complain about it."
That doesn't mean a woman likes it. A thing might make a woman behave temporarily in a way you like but that does not mean that she is content and happy, nor does she like the thing that triggered the change.
Or is everyone interpreting "turned off" as literal sexual arousal and not the general "I hate this and want to turn my head from this, not look at it, feel disgusted by this" way?
I think Catholics see this differently. At least, "God promised not to end the world in a flood." is the reason I got when I asked my priests, parents, and Catholic school teachers how that reconciles with the Second Coming. Which isn't exactly high authority but I never saw a reason to second guess it.
Meanwhile Catholic mystic tradition has lots of visionaries warning of coming chastisements if we don't mend our ways and pray harder.
Are we not all sinners? When Jesus returns, will He not judge us by our sins? There is no specific trigger condition to the eschaton but there is a reason for it - "Behold, I make all things new." The reason for the eschaton is the problem of sin.
Maybe this is generalizing, but I suspect that the vast majority of women in committed relationships are turned off by their men showing sexual interest in other women.
Fullmetal Alchemist had some really cool ideas. The story begins with a difficult problem and as the plot continues the problem seems to get more and more impossible and maybe not as important as some other things, but then main characters get out of the problem at the very end. The way they get out of the problem seems "correct" in hindsight but was also very cathartic and hard to guess ahead of time. There's one big magic system that everyone uses differently, along with some competent muggles who make things interesting.
I wouldn't write it off based on a blurb. I persist in recommending it, if only because it's fairly short for a shonen and you can probably figure out if you like it or not by the 5th episode or so.
The sub-genre you seem to like most is called Shonen. Some recommendations are here: https://gamerant.com/best-shonen-anime-to-watch/
Personally I highly recommend Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood. I thought it had a fairly conservative message all around, but not obnoxiously so. I mean, it does follow the law of conservation at least, (haha).
Dragonball Z had a lot of sexual stuff in it, but it might have gone over your head if you were a child. There were dramatic nosebleeds, an old man who was a pervert, etc.
It is pretty well accepted across most forms of Christianity that at some point this world will end. I'm not sure what tradition you are pulling from where God will not destroy the world as it exists today and make a new Heaven and new Earth.
- Prev
- Next

I came upon this X thread right before reading your comment: https://x.com/Devon_Eriksen_/status/2086713323022659973
The thesis is that there are two reasons why a man will hate you:
He will hate you because you harmed him.
And he will hate you because he has harmed you.
A political refugee fleeing a communist state will love their new country. They are not hurting their new countrymen, they are contributors and they love their new freedom. Their new freedom does not detract from everyone else's freedom, they are adding to their host country's freedom by demonstrating the beauty of that freedom to those who maybe have become complacent in it.
An economic refugee fleeing a shit hole will have to accept lots of financial and other help. If that financial help is coming from a wealthy benefactor who is willingly giving the support, then maybe it can be tolerated because there is a personal relationship. If that financial help is coming from a tax base that is increasingly strained, that financial aid is coming from hurting the native populace, even if that pain is intentionally spread out to be tolerated. And so the economic immigrant has to find a reason why the native population deserves this pain, reasons why this harm is just. And if there are no obvious reasons, reasons will need to be invented.
I think this might get more responses in the Culture War thread. I worry I've crossed the line already in this post though we've kept it vague so far.
More options
Context Copy link