@ZanarkandAbesFan's banner p

ZanarkandAbesFan


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 14 users  
joined 2024 March 15 18:08:08 UTC

				

User ID: 2935

ZanarkandAbesFan


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 14 users   joined 2024 March 15 18:08:08 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2935

The pro-Ukraine, anti-Israel crowd is not small. It's the default position of the western left.

A perfect representation of what it means to be "Woke right". Daydreaming about an abusive relationship with a regime that isn't shy about how much it despises you just for the sake of killing the Jews.

Do Hezbollah and the Houthis also do this?

America, by contrast, is attempting something unprecedented in history: to maintain national coherence while undergoing massive demographic transformation without any clear cultural center holding it all together. How much change can a country absorb before it becomes something else entirely? And does that change matter? It’s not that immigrants are bad or incapable. That’s not the point. The point is that America is trying to do something historically novel: become a post-ethnic, post-historical nation that binds together people with radically different origins, languages, and values using only a kind of civic glue—and lately, even that glue seems to be dissolving.

Laughs in European.

I wonder if they're getting any takers.

It isn't surprising that the anglosphere right has greater problems attracting young people than the right in the rest of the west. AfD, Sweden democrats and national rally do fairly well among young voters. The rather aimless right in the anglosphere fails at attracting young people and successful people. A young highly educated person is simply going to find the aesthetics and the values of mainstream conservatism boring and unappealing.

Why the anti-immigration right tends to do better in non-anglosphere than anglosphere countries has a lot to do with the differing electoral systems. The main center-right party in Sweden, the Moderates, isn't much sexier than the UK Conservatives but because Sweden uses proportional representation (as opposed to FPTP) a vote for SD isn't going to risk feeling wasted like a vote for Reform in the UK might.

They've got my vote (/s, I love the Asian hoes)

Makes me wonder what Fatah stands for.

And it's all in service of making them pass better as the opposite sex as an adult when I don't even agree that that's a valid goal for anyone to undertake.

Well this is the actual crux of our disagreement, in that I believe that physical transition can be a helpful approach for a certain small number of people. Everything else you've brought up is downstream of that - i.e. I can't imagine you'd be particularly animated about potential side effects like infertility if we were discussing some other procedure designed to achieve what you'd consider a valid outcome.

They aren't harmless.

I didn't say they were.

I assume what you mean is that puberty blockers are more of a deviation from the standard path of physical development than going through puberty itself is (I'd be quite confused otherwise; it's hard to think of any process or operation that actually causes more changes to the human body than puberty).

I'm not really clued into the exact nature of the side effects of puberty blockers, but that doesn't change my argument. It's up to the clinician to weigh the harms of putting a child on puberty blockers vs the potential benefit to their future mental wellbeing of potentially allowing them to transition more effectively.

and sounding like the penultimate act of The Feminist.

God that's a weird read.

...and the puberty blocker discussion in particular was very vexing to me. I just genuinely don't know how anyone can be okay with the idea, especially now that we know way more about it than we did 10 years ago.

I'm basically pro-puberty blocker in principle, and my reasoning is as follows:

  • Adults should, broadly speaking, be allowed to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, including physically transitioning.

  • Whether a trans person begins to physical transition before or after adolescense seems to have a big effect on how effectively they'll eventually pass as the opposite sex.

  • I'm quite uncomfortable with non-adults making permanent, irreversible alterations to their body.

  • Therefore, if someone has made clear they want to transition and there's a way for someone to reach adulthood (or get closer to it) while preserving the best chance of passing as the opposite sex, I would be in favour of it. Puberty blockers seem to be a reasonable solution to this problem.

In practice of course things quickly get messy and I don't know what the ideal criteria should be for getting blockers prescribed nor what the trade-off is between possible side-effects and potential benefit. I leave that to people more invested in the topic.

I interpreted @Goodguy's comment to mean that someone arguing for reducing women's liberties for the sake of improving their own dating prospects is loser-coded. Caesar and Augustus probably had more conservative sexual ethics than most western people do today, but I imagine that was for reasons other than worrying that they'd lose out to chad if women could choose their own suitors.

I doubt Caesar would have feared competing in a free sexual marketplace.

I don't see what's so outrageous about the post you replied to that you'd assume trolling. Maybe saying Finn and Niko are top percentile is hyperbole, but not crazily so.

Casual sex is a luxury. And that's been true for the entirety of human history. Short of prostitution, courting a partner/paying the bride price was the only way to get your willie wet for the overwhelming majority of men.

I'd have assumed most men throughout history have had access to prostitutes.

You meet people in real life by making friends, getting invited to parties, meeting more people, getting invited to more parties (by which I include everything from barbecues to housewarmings to weddings to Halloween to NYE, whatever) until you have a relatively busy social schedule because one of your dozens of friends and acquaintances is probably hosting something this weekend and you’re invited.

This is key and what a lot of dating discourse neglects. The problem is that many men who want a romantic partner often aren't particularly interested in making more platonic friends. Psychologically, it also feels a lot more indirect (compared to being told how to looksmax or how to cold approach), so can be difficult to generate enthusiasm for this approach.

Men get in shape for women, men become meatheads for themselves.

In short-- the average man i.e a guy who would probably get rated a 6 or 7 by most people is virtually invisible to women online to a degree that's frankly quite horrific when you compare it to the experience of an attractive man.

What sort of scale is this? Surely "average" means someone who most people would rate around 5/10.

I broadly agree, but I interpreted 2rafa's use of the word "settlement" to mean some sort of concession or compromise.

As I mentioned in my reply to Crowstep, that sort of figure depends heavily on how you define urban. If we use a figure of 500/km^2, ChatGPT gives the percentage of people living at >= this density in Sweden as 15%, while in the UK it's 45%.

The Scandinavian countries have low levels of population density because vast tracts in the frozen north are empty, but that doesn't mean the people are spread out.

Wikipedia gives the respective population density of Germany and Sweden as 234/km^2 and 25/km^2. You could make Sweden a fifth of its current size - going far beyond the point at which you'd be cutting out empty northern regions - and Germany would still be about twice as dense.

Excluding city-states, Sweden is the 8th most urban country in Europe. It's significantly more densely populated than Germany by that metric.

That sort of number depends heavily on how you define urban. The wikipedia page you linked cites the World Bank but they don't provide any actual definition for what counts as urban.

ChatGPT gives the percentage of the population of Sweden that live in an area with density >500/km^2 as 15%, while that same number for Germany is 45%. This seems to suggest that Germany is significantly more densely populated than Sweden when you drill into the numbers.