The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly.
This point highlights a cultural undercurrent I've noticed since the morality of power dynamics has taken center stage in the woke transformation of culture. It's the idea that its not OK for a man with social status to actually gain any benefit from that status, at least outside of vary narrow constraints. Wealth, leadership, talent, etc are all traits that are attractive to women. But there's a growing thought that a man with those traits should not use them for e.g. sexual advantage. The intent seems to be to put constraints on the scale of sexual success of men, in a way that is never analogously applied to women.
I'm reminded of a post on one of the relationship advice subreddits where a woman told of how her fiance found out that she was very sexually promiscuous in college. Aside from just having a large number of partners, she also fucked 4 guys at once, and her fiance was questioning the future of the relationship. The response was near universal support of the woman's behavior and that it was unconscionable that any man should have a problem with one's past sexual history, regardless of how extreme. But on the flip side, a guy with some trait that makes him hyper attractive is supposed to restrain himself for the sake of other women or society or whatever. Case-in-point, all the consternation over Leonardo DiCaprio's relationship history. Another example being all the hate Nick Cannon gets for having so many kids.
I certainly understand historical taboos against sexual promiscuity as it puts serious strain on social stability. But when only one side of this dynamic is being upheld (male sexual restraint) while the other side is being completely freed from all such constraints, it points towards a deeper motivation. Namely, that the trend is towards an anti-masculine, pro-feminine moral standard. To be charitable, perhaps this pro-feminine bias isn't the intent but rather the side effect. A moral standard that is biased towards empowering the weaker party in an exchange will systematically be biased towards women in any male-female interaction. The problem is that the standard ends up removing agency from women in the process. For example, you can't say that DiCaprio or Cannon is doing something immoral unless you also say their partners have reduced agency.
hitb
1yr ago
You're treating Ukraine's admittance to NATO as an inevitability.
I'm doing no such thing. All I am doing is acknowledging that Putin cannot take for granted the kinds of claims you can take for granted from your epistemic position. Ukraine gets accepted into NATO when NATO wants to accept Ukraine. That's all Putin can know for sure. Why would he risk (from his perspective) the security of Russia based on arbitrary legal constraints that only have power by convention of NATO?
It's strange how all discussions regarding this war involve this basic error in assuming your adversary knows or believes the same things you know or believe and should act in according with your collection of beliefs. Further, that any war should be perfectly timed and motivated in accordance with these supposed facts. It's the fallacy of the Platonic ideal war. Of course, only one's enemies are held to such a standard.
hitb
1yr ago
But its also clear that the west was forging closer ties with Ukraine, and that NATO publicly stated in 2008 that "[Ukraine and Georgia] will become members of NATO". Putin can only take NATO's words at face value. While the question of timing is interesting, it is not all that relevant to whether NATO is the reason for Putin's war. Putin's actions over the last 15 years can be seen as stalling tactics and preventative measures to delay or deny Ukraine eventual NATO membership. The specific timing at which he decided his interference is likely to fail is not all that informative. What he must do is act before Ukraine gains NATO protection. But he can't know exactly when that will be nor can he rely on predicting that point. The risk of acting too late from his perspective is infinitely more costly than acting too early.
hitb
1yr ago
People can and will do whatever they can get away with. I mean, if you expect some kind of all things considered justification to be a constraint to waging war, you're gonna have a bad time. Much better is to invest in friendly relations and building up your military to disincentivize aggression.
hitb
1yr ago
Why think there needs to be a single incident in proximity to an act of aggression that incites it? When the event being defended against is amorphous, ex. Ukraine being embraced by the West, there is no reason to think the preemptive move should be in close proximity to some triggering event. When the feared event is years away at best, you have the luxury of taking your time. Also, there are the potentially relevant factors of Trump's exit and a COVID delay that can help explain timing.
hitb
1yr ago
There was plenty to discuss about her stats that would have been substantive. But most of the comments weren't that. When you literally see a thousand variations on the same comment, its clearly something other than "discussion" going on. And as far as unprompted comments go, there have been plenty of "take a shower" comments on unrelated tweets of hers, or on related content from other people. It's as clear case of the hivemind enforcing conformity.
hitb
1yr ago
What I don't understand is why so many people feel the need to register an opinion about her hygiene habits. If the people around her aren't bothered by it, why would anyone waste a single thought on it, much less participate in discussions about it? This human need to produce conformity at all costs is asinine.
First lets be clear, this is not a matter of preponderance of evidence, it is a matter of utility maximizing. Again, the risk from Putin's perspective for acting too late is massively greater than the risk of acting too early. So for the sum total of evidence to weigh against invasion rationally requires a near-totality of evidence against Ukraine admission. But the facts as Putin can know them are not so biased against Ukraine admission into NATO in the future.
When it comes to national security concerns, a decade is nothing. What about 100 years into the future? Ukraine codified their intent to join NATO into their constitution while NATO has made written overtures towards Ukraine's eventual admission. Why do you think these points should mean nothing to Putin from a utility-maximizing framework?
Not all landmass is created equal. Putin has made it clear that Ukraine and Georgia were redlines. Finland and Sweden are less of a concern, probably because they are further north and don't have direct paths to mainland Europe. As far as strategic land value for staging force projection, Ukraine and Georgia are of much greater importance.
Any war will have two justifications: one that represents the proximal cause for the decision makers, and one for the consumption of the masses. I don't know why internet commentators have such a hard time with this point. It's always interesting to notice when people are quick to take an adversary's statements at face value and when they contort themselves to question them. The blatant self-serving nature of taking Putin's statements at face value here but not the last few decades of anti-NATO expansion rhetoric should give any honest interlocutor pause.
More options
Context Copy link