Bombadil
4d ago
That is also what I have been told by women, so it is probably true. But the direction that they influence each other in matters a lot. If they encourage the behavior I describe, or police those who value self control and long term planning, then my point still stands.
At least in my experience, women are the first to claim that sex is not a big deal and discourage anything that shames promiscuity or a lack of self control.
I think a better counter is that it is easy to find examples of men who ended up in abusive relationships, when they really ought to have known better. So perhaps this is not a woman-specific issue, but rather just that some people lack self control and think with their genitals.
I would argue though, that women sure seem to complain a lot more about landing in abusive relationships than men do, so clearly there is some kind of gendered thing going on here.
Bombadil
4d ago
Modern society is quite good at shaming certain crude sexual impulses commonly expressed in men, whilst romanticizing and encouraging the kind of sexual expression often exhibited by women. With few expectations of self control when it comes to how women should behave around men, it only makes sense that some would make terrible choices driven by impulse rather than intellect.
Men are taught to contain their sexual desire from the moment they enter puberty. I might feel a strong force pulling me to stare mesmerized at the cleavage of my female classmates, but if I entertain it, I will be ridiculed and shamed. I am taught quite clearly that just because I have a crush on someone, I should not expect her to like me back. It is sometimes necessary to suppress my natural, sexual desires. Simply being attracted to someone does not mean I should pursue them.
And with this last point, I think, lies the issue. Any young girl who is crude in the way that men are crude, is also likely to be ridiculed and shamed. However, no one teaches women that feeling attracted or turned on is not necessarily a good reason to try and have sex. Instead, women are told to express their sexuality in whatever way feels best in the moment. Wear the slutty close, grind on strangers in the club, and by all means pursue that bad boy who you like so much. Repressing your sexuality is unhealthy and connected to ideas of patriarchs wanting women to be nothing more than stay-at-home baby makers. If you feel a crush you are encouraged to go for it. If you feel attracted to someone, then why not have sex with them? It is great fun for both parties!
When women are encouraged to just give in to their impulses like that, it is no wonder that a portion of them end up in bad relationships. I would imagine that beside all his obvious flaws, the ex in question simply turned her on. He knew what buttons to push to make her want him, and she just gave into temptation like she always had.
Bombadil
4d ago
I remember her appeal as "climate change is so obviously man-made and bad that even a child can see it. Now start acting before it is too late!"
Then the climate change movement, and Greta with it, became so heavily influenced by culture warriors that many lost track of what it was supposed to achieve. The protests against nuclear powerplants were laughable to say the least. Greta became just another grifter who used activism mostly to advance her own status.
Independence from fossil fuels sure would have been nice by now, but I guess this is what millennials and gen Z deserves for ceding influential positions to people who should have never been anywhere near them.
Bombadil
5d ago
The funny thing is, that had the US played their cards differently, it is very possible they could have just convinced the Greenlanders they had a better deal, and let them vote to secede as you suggest. However, the rhetoric from the Trump administration burned all the goodwill, and joining the States voluntarily is borderline impossible now.
The negotiator in chief really dropped the ball with this one.
Bombadil
5d ago
You are straight up just lying. Trump was throwing out different ways to annex Greenland for weeks. He came up with all sorts of arguments, from how the inuits were poor and needed someone strong (not Denmark) to take care of them, to threatening invasion because a country with a weak military has no right to self determination. He ended up threatening tariffs, then backed down when it became clear that the European Union would not stop supporting Denmark.
I would call this sanewashing, but honestly this goes beyond that. You are actually just lying, because the truth would cause your standpoint to fall apart.
Bombadil
5d ago
All I am saying is that literally bombing people's homes will result in refugees. Not that all refugees come from war.
Although war is correlated with refugee waves, and if a war is ongoing it is very hard to reject the refugee due to the European convention on human rights. The longer the refugees stay, the higher the risk that they are made permanent citizens, as they grow stronger ties to their host country the longer they live there.
Thus, this war will result in more refugees the longer it goes on, and it will be difficult for European governments to reject the refugees without making drastic changes to their laws. If the goal here is to reduce immigration, invading Iran is thus completely counterproductive.
Bombadil
5d ago
By the way, if your goal is to reduce immigration, then starting a war which will invariably result in Iranian refugees that the European countries will have to deal with, seems counterproductive to say the least.
Bombadil
5d ago
Well, the EU really really wants to be on good terms with the US. Do not underestimate the delusional capabilities of people who desperately want a certain narrative to be true. I am not even sure if this time is different. Maybe in four years, with the election of a charismatic democrat, the EU countries will have blissfully forgotten about everything and returned to being America's lapdogs.
Bombadil
5d ago
The Iraq war definitely harmed the relationship, but the Obama administration did a lot to salvage it. Before 2016, and really until about 2020, I met several people who had either been or dreamed of going to the US. It was not uncommon for political parties to associate with American ones. Now, everyone I know caveats their wishes to go with a "I will wait until the situation improves. Any party with a positive view of Trump risks losing voters.
The people opposed to the US have historically been limited to extreme leftists (communists and the like), as well as refugees from the countries America invaded. With the second Trump administration, this opinion is now mainstream. The harm this administration has inflicted upon the American reputation is honestly ridiculous.
There is an assumption here, that if the EU hurts more than the US from this, then the US "wins". I would think, that if both sides suffer otherwise avoidable losses without directly gaining anything in return (the idea that the EU would become more aligned with America from this is uncertain to say the least), then both have lost. The populations of both are worse off than they otherwise would have been, and their standing relative to other powers (Russia and China) has weakened considerably. And this is assuming there are sides to begin with. The very notion assumes an adversarial relationship between the EU and the US. Something that has largely not been the case before Trump.
I would also like to point out, that Europeans looking down on Americans is a fairly recent development. Until around 2016 (rhetoric around the culture war also looks bad. The left is not exempt from this), many Europeans looked up to America and dreamed of traveling or living there. Trump specifically looks like an idiot from a European perspective, and the fact that you elected him twice and that he continues to enjoy widespread support makes your entire population look bad by proxy.
Bombadil
8d ago
No one smart and capable person would willingly and publicly go against the elites, that I agree with. But multiple smart and capable people could band together in a group and amass enough power over time to take a stand against the elites. The western societies still afford a good amount of agency in the personal life, and enough privacy that dissenting ideas need not be made public too early.
If people are too disillusioned to try that is certainly an issue though. But I do not believe anything is unsolvable yet.
Bombadil
9d ago
I would second Perun (https://youtube.com/@PerunAU). His analyses tend to be quite objective, and he will usually wait at least a week after a major event happens before he covers it, to let the dust settle and get the worst misinformation out of the way. He is also quite transparent regarding where he gets his information from, and is good at mentioning when the it is incomplete or likely to be biased (which is very often the case given the fog of war).
Bombadil
9d ago
Assuming that being non-cis is an inborn trait, it could also be that being non-cis makes you more likely to be sexually assaulted at some point.
It is a fun test that shows how little I know about makeup and classical literature. I have a couple problems with it though. A few words appear to have spelling mistakes (
Some questions have a lot ambiguity to them. Like, one could use
With that in mind, I can't take the test super seriously, but at least the categories are interesting, and legitimately span a wide array of topics.
Bombadil
11d ago
At this point, my main issue is with how this is enforced. A world without children on the internet would be a better one. But how do you ensure children don't access the internet without doing away with any semblance of online privacy?
Bombadil
11d ago
I would be interested in learning more about the casual dating market in china. With marriage being gated behind prohibitive sums of money, I would expect people to just not get married. Human desires being what they are though, people are going to find some way to romance and sex. So I would think that situationships, casual flings, maybe lying about seeing someone on the side, would be common practices. The obvious loophole in the social norms. We can tell people that we are dating to figure out if we are a good match, then break up once we realize it would be better to see someone else.
I think in general this hints at a certain weakness of of how China is ruled. It seems like the Chinese government has been attempting to force behavior change through authoritarian means, but with every law they create, some unforeseen side effect pops up. The one-child policy resulted in a huge gender imbalance. Turning the country capitalist made it wealthy, but increased the people's financial anxieties to the point where they are using marriage as a means of making money. Blackmailing people into demanding less money for marriage seemingly just has not worked.
From my point of view, these problems appear to have been caused by government overreach. Perhaps the solution then, is to just let it play out, regulate less, accept life will suck for the next generation, but assume the problem will eventually resolve itself with time.
Bombadil
12d ago
No. Both have agency. And the bystanders are correct to blame both the instigator and the culprit.
Bombadil
13d ago
You are. You provoked a psycho (threatened his life, really) who in turn became hyper aggressive. The psycho is also responsible, but you absolutely carry part of the blame. This was a predictable result of your actions, and you did nothing to mitigate the harm you knew (or should have known) would occur.
Bombadil
13d ago
Who are the people that you believe supported the lockdowns, knowing that they were lying about the effects they would have? I have a hard time identifying any group that benefited from this, other than the hospitals which were under less pressure than would have otherwise been the case;
The point of the lockdowns was to lessen the load on the hospitals so they would not be overloaded and forced to triage. A very real possibility at the time, given just how fast the disease was spreading and the amount of people expressing debilitating or life threatening symptoms. Instead of everyone falling ill during the same short timespan, the course of the pandemic was spread out over a longer period, allowing time to adapt and treat serious cases as they came in. Incidentally, this also bought time to develop a vaccine, resulting in less people becoming sick than would have otherwise been expected.
I will grant you that the lockdowns did not directly save lives compared to risking infections. Covid is not the bubonic plaque that so many make it out to be. To many, it was in fact no worse than the flu. But the effect of overloaded hospitals had the potential to be immense. Tons of people would have been unable to work as important operations were postponed. Healthcare workers would have been worn out and more likely to become sick themselves.
Further, you have to factor in the fact that no modern society is willing to turn the sick or injured away from hospitals. Modern morals dictate that if there is a path to treat everyone, then we must follow it. Even if it results in lowered quality of life for others.
You can look back now and make a reasonable argument that the lockdowns were a mistake. But at the time, I don't see how the politicians could have really done anything different. They are accountable to the public if nothing else, and most people were watching the situation pretty closely. The numbers of infected were constantly going up, breaking news showed bodies being transported through the streets, and anyone with a connection to healthcare (whether it be as doctor or patient) could see the situation slowly spiraling out of control. The public demanded action. History tells us that the main way to stop infection is to isolate the sick. So everyone had the same question burning on their lips: "If a lockdown can slow this down, then why are we not doing it?"
Without a compelling narrative, your statistics are powerless against such sentiments. And as I outlined above, there were legitimate arguments here. In retrospect, they may not have been sufficient, and we can hope that we will make better decisions in the future. I personally hope for hospitals that have the resources to handle sudden influxes in patients without resorting to triage. But in the end, our leaders were under pressure to act rapidly, and this was the best answer they could come up with at the time.
Bombadil
14d ago
The issue with Ukraine is that Russia would not accept anything short of unconditional surrender. So there was really nothing to discuss. Even now, Russia continues to demand areas they are not currently in control of. This would also not mean peace. The Russians will only settle for an armastice that would give them time to rebuild their military whilst demanding that no security guarantees be placed on the Ukranian side. If the Ukranians accepted this kind of "peace", most likely Russia would just attack again in a few years anyway, potentially with Ukraine being weakened and Russia much stronger. By then, the Ukranians might not fare as well as they currently are.
The Ukranians are in a difficult position: Unconditional surrender or keep fighting. Currently they seem to believe that freedom is worth the deaths. Surely, an American should understand this concept.
Bombadil
16d ago
I think in the case of RedPill, most people that both hold nuanced opinions and are also influential enough to help steer the tone of conversation have just gotten old. Much of red pill theory seems based on how the dating market shifted through the late 90's and early 2000's. People who were in their late twenties in 2008 are almost 50 now. It seems plausible to me that those who originally wrote the theory no longer care about swaying public opinion and the drama that comes with that.
Bombadil
19d ago
What fucking guy is the unlikely combination of hot enough to get a woman to go on a date with him, romantically frustrated enough to engage in Man-o-Sphere content, AND clueless enough to talk judgy redpill lingo about bodycount and hypergamy to the woman he's on a date with?
Assuming that the manosphere content works in getting women attractive, this combo actually makes sense. The man in question failed to attract women due to being clueless in the past, and thus became sexually frustrated. He eventually stumbled on to red pill content, and implementing it improved his game to the point where women now find him attractive. Once he is a few dates in, he starts to relax and use redpill lingo. Since he follows redpill content, he is not interested in long relationships, and eventually moves onto a new woman. At this point, his former lover becomes angry and starts talking about how she should have seen the warning signs.
Besides, the guy doesn't have to mention something as extreme as hypergamy to be perceived as red pill. Certain behaviors are red-pill coded enough, and would be enough evidence for an angry ex feeling like the guy was at fault. Stuff like negging, or not taking her emotions seriously.
If you look into the history of poorhouses, you will also find stories of people whose life were ruined due to grief from losing children. So we can see that even those most likely to loose their children, could still feel intense sorrow over the event.
Only having few written sources on people grieving their lost kids is also not necessarily indicative that it did not happen. People tend to write about either the exceptional or what they consider important. If something is extremely common, even if sad and tragic, then it is possible that only those very close to the event itself would be interested in writing down their experience. But for most of history, only the elites were capable of writing. In other words, it is possible that grieving was common place and that many were deeply affected, but because it was considered an ordinary part of life, most people did not care to write about it.
I would not assume that people were less attached to their kids just because survival was less guaranteed.
Besides, people are quite god at surviving. Humans have an impressive capacity to soldier on in the face of all kinds of pain if the only alternative is starvation.
The US though, is in the fairly rare position of actually being able to literally bomb the world into the stone age through nuclear arms. Furthermore, they are currently an active part of a war. Thus, the threat carries a lot more weight. It is the difference between your mom saying she's going to kill you for destroying her favorite plates, and a thug pointing a gun at you saying the same thing.
More options
Context Copy link