domain:badcyber.com
hydroacetylene
1m ago
I would’ve guessed 80 million, but let’s be real- it doesn’t matter that much. Ted Cruz knows Iran is big enough to be relevant. That’s what he needs to know.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3m ago
Knowing the specific population of Iran is far, far less relevant...
Yeah, the specific population. I wouldn't care if he was off by 10 million in either direction, but knowing the ballpark is pretty important. I didn't know it's population either (like at all), and finding out we're talking about a country the size of a fifth of the entire EU spooked me out quite a bit.
sun_the_second
5m ago
Whether it's a punishment or a blessing depends on whether it's forced upon you when you're least ready or given when you're most desperate for it.
ControlsFreak
11m ago
I think this comment assumes that banning is the only mechanism in question. Indeed, some forms of banning were used with smoking, but it certainly wasn't the only tool. Nor was it actually just a general ban. Moreover, while folks could quibble with an externality analysis, externalities are certainly not the only things that societies make "pushes" about.
Terracotta
11m ago
Girl here. @kky makes a great point about starting fights (especially with big reconciliations) sometimes being an unconscious bid to restore emotional intimacy when the relationship feels stuck.
Note that although Words of Affection or whatever are the official Love Language, the actual underlying currency is attention, intimacy and low-key daily consideration. There's solid evolutionary reason that many women respond to this, because if a partner is fundamentally not interested in a woman as a person, if he gets no great positive utility from caring for her and knowing she's happy day-to-day, if he's not the kind of guy who can notice and spontaneously help if she or a kid are struggling, then that's a very dangerous partner to risk a potentially difficult pregnancy plus years of infant caregiving with.
If paying mechanical compliments feels too weird, with many women you can also maintain feelings of relational care and intimacy in other ways:
-
Asking more questions, especially about her emotional state or other intimate topics as a follow-up to superficial life updates ("how did you feel about that?" "wow, was that really hard on you, given [past trend]?" "what are you really excited about this week?"). There's a list of random intimate questions called The 36 Questions to Fall In Love circulating somewhere, with some good possibilities if you need ideas.
-
If you ask a question about feelings, not offering pushback or disagreement about the feelings themselves, just affectionately validating. If you think she's 100% wrong and crazy in a situation, you can express generic care like "you are trying so hard, wish I could be there to give you a hug."
-
Remembering her answers to past questions and actively following up in a supportive way ("what happened with that big work project, anyway? were you happy with how it turned out? what is Sharon scheming about these days?"). If you can, try to compliment any admirable things about her approach and validate that her negative feelings are OK to feel.
-
Sharing little intimate details about your own feelings, hopes, dreams, fears, vulnerabilities as a way of requesting care from her (nothing actually icky/humiliating unless it's in the past). This is the Ben Franklin Effect for emotional labor and it works really well: just look at how many romance heroes have tragic backstories requiring the heroine's sympathy.
-
Engineering any little acts of care so that they also express low-key attention- so don't just send an article link, send an article relevant to something she mentioned, with a note "your mentioning __ got me thinking about __ and I thought I'd send this. I love that we can explore this together!"
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11m ago
Off-topic to the whole Iran issue, but: everybody's giving Ted Cruz shit over that interview, but I actually ended up liking him after that interview. He didn't have a good answers to several objections I found important, but it was refreshing to see a politician have a normal conversation trying to step someone through their reasoning on an important issue, answering relevant (to me) objections in real-time, etc., as opposed to sticking to talking points and pre-prepared statements as is typical on short-form TV interviews.
With all the talk of the impact of podcast-bros on the results of the election, I wonder if this won't be something that future politicians will have to git gud at.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12m ago
There is an important distinction between the current USA and the USA of 1860. Namely, one of these has eleven times the population of the other despite being mostly the same size (yeah, yeah, Alaska, but it's not exactly the breadbasket of the USA). The modern developed world has staggeringly-high, unprecedented population densities, and while some of that is from permanent knowledge gained, a lot more of it is from economic sophistication. A farmer of 1860 can make most of the stuff he needs - not all, but most, and his tools are at least pretty durable and repairable. A farmer of 2025 is using agricultural equipment manufactured in cities from mined minerals and fuelled with petroleum products from oil fields to spread mined/synthesised fertilisers, pesticides, and F1 hybrid seeds whose progeny aren't viable. Most of those things are produced hundreds of kilometres from his farm if not thousands, and many of them are well beyond his capacity to even repair let alone replace, and they make him more efficient.
Civil strife means things hundreds of kilometres away are not available to you anymore because there are enemies between you and them, and they can't get their inputs either. What we've built is a gleaming metropolis of elaborate, carefully-built crystal towers, not an indestructible pyramid. Guess what happens when your food production drops by 80% and you were only a moderate food exporter in percentage terms before this, and you also have difficulty importing food. Then consider what people will do in their desperation, and the resulting lasting damage to culture and society.
I am actually eliding a fair bit of stuff here because, um, some Mottizens want bad things to happen instead of good things.
(The extent of Australia's food surplus is such that with the standard abandonment of grain-fed livestock (which is super-inefficient in terms of food calories) we'd still clearly pull through if the music stopped. This is a special and highly-unusual privilege. The USA, despite being the biggest food exporter in the world in absolute terms, does not have that absurd cushion of safety.)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
13m ago
Low effort comments do not require low-effort rejoinders, especially when they have already been modded.
Hadad
14m ago
Nonsense. It's par for the course for US politicians to support Israel over Palestine, and it's also par for the course for people to say that's a genocide.
Hadad
15m ago
The problem is US leaders consistently failing to identify the real problem or lay out appropriate goals. Bombing can't nation-build. The US needs to utterly abandon its desire to nation build, to spread democracy, etc., etc. It doesn't work. What it can do is keep a non-nuclear power in the stone age with overwhelming violence.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
15m ago
- Bring back shotgun marriages. Make impregnation result in an automatic marriage and enforce much stricter rules for divorce in such marriages.
This is part of why I think no-fault divorce was the schwerpunkt of the culture war (or at least the sex and sexuality theatre thereof). If you look at cishajnal cultures before about 1800, shotgun weddings were the first line of defence against bastardy for the lower and middle classes (elite men could afford to support their bastards, and elite women could be kept chaperoned). The incentives created meant that pre-marital sex was common (the fraction of first children born less than 9 months after the wedding gets as high as one in three in some times and places) but it really is pre-marital - you only have sex with someone you are ready, willing and able to marry. But if "we aren't actually in love" is grounds for divorce, then there is no point in a shotgun wedding. The difference between a divorced single mum because the shotgun marriage to the slob was never going to work out and a never-married single mum who wasn't interested in marrying the slob is not one that matters in practice.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
16m ago
I don't think you'll have any luck finding serious American candidates who advocate for genocide.
ControlsFreak
17m ago
which are all now reasons for any random individual to stay in the current cultural equilibrium
I sort of don't believe you. Game theory is hard in general, and it's extra difficult for complicated cultural games. It's easy to ipse dixit some into existence; it's much harder to actually show with a reasonable model.
If you want to push them and together with them whole of society to other equilibrium, you need to a path from here to there.
I mean, no? Most social engineering projects fail, and many cultural changes have occurred without someone planning out a specific step-by-step path. This sort of demand is basically trying to set up an impossible task, as no one here is going to be able to just apply magic to accomplish intermediate steps, and any proposed intermediate steps will be responded to with, "...then why haven't you already done that?" I'm feeling the FConSCC/Hlynka flowing that you're just working from a completely flawed conceptual framework for the base of a discussion.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
17m ago
Follow up question now that I can see vote breakdowns, which comment are you referring to with the +18 -24? I assume you mean my response to the ICE question that starts with "It's stupid theatrics."?
I am seeing that as net +21 (+30 -9), is there vote fuzzing or something?
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
17m ago
I actually endorse this approach 100%, but surely this implies a general rejection of social science?
I don't completely reject social science, but @faceh's constant citing of statistics from sources engineered to affirm his priors does not strike me as rigorous social science. "More people of both sexes are not having sex." "People are marrying later than ever or going unmarried." Okay, I believe that, but there are a lot of other explanations for those things. It is not convincing evidence for the argument that this is because women overall have become completely unreasonable and delusional and 80% of them are getting pumped and dumped by 20% of the guys, and decent normal men can't get any action at all.
Wait what? Why are you glad you're off the market, if your eyes are telling you things are fine?
I don't think things are "fine" exactly - it does seem very difficult to navigate relationships nowadays, but that is largely because of generational differences. (I am in the "kids today" stage of life.) What I see is not that guys simply cannot find a girl, but that relationships between the sexes are more fraught than ever before, and also the whole idea of trying to market yourself online with an app (which is apparently how most people do it nowadays) seems hellish to me.
Hadad
18m ago
That depends entirely on who's making the decisions, I think. I'm going to vote for people who are okay with destroying our enemies.
Fair point on opinion vs debate. I did not consider that support for his comment could be both "I am glad you shared an opinion" or "I agree with your opinion".
Asking for what? Or, what was I asking for?
I tried to caveat my comment with "this is the vibe I get" and not "I am confidently saying I know the demographic of this community"
I did not realize you can see the upvote/downvote breakdown, thanks for that.
I really cannot emphasize how much I don't care about internet points lol. Anyone who complains about their downvotes, or brags about their upvotes should be bullied. This website doesn't even have a karma score (thank god) and I think would be better if it removed votes all together. A forum with threaded comments that can only be sorted by new is the ideal design, in my opinion.
Back when I was active on reddit, I made new accounts a few times a year and one of the main reasons for that was to never get attached to a karma score.
There are problems with your comment that should have been fixed
Always open to feedback
Hadad
23m ago
Yes, Iran and not-Iran have different wants and incentives This is quite typical.
Ditto6687
25m ago
That's a pretty good argument for why Iran should get nukes don't you think?
Owlify
25m ago
Yeah, I can understand that. It's very subjective as people mostly go off of their moral instincts.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
27m ago
Yeah, "approved" in the Milgram Experiment sense.
It wasn't a long time ago that the pro-trans side had total information dominance. Even If a parent had their doubts and wanted to double-check what the doctor said, all they'd find after googling is papers and statements from respected institutions telling you how Gender Affirming Care is The Science™, and you're an ignorant fool for wanting to delay or avoid your child's medicalization. It takes a special kind of contrarian to go with their gut, against every authority figure in vicinity and beyond.
That's a great point, under this framework that doesn't really work, but it did happen.
Smoking has lots of negative externalities to those around you, which make it easier to ban I guess? I probably need another coffee to map this onto pre-marital sex.
I think applying the externality logic to pre-marital sex, pre-marital sex has much less obvious (and by definition, delayed by 9 months) externalities. So it's harder to drum up support by pointing to single mom's who may or may not have had sex out of wedlock, versus the person next to you on the airplane making your lungs miserable.
Might have double-negative'd that, idk
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
31m ago
True Marxism has never been tried, Comrade!
This is exactly the bit I was riffing on.
I'm firmly in the camp of "both Marxism and Christian ideals have been tried and found lacking". If you think Chesterson is right, but the Marxist fanatics are wrong, I would be curious to see how that gap is bridged.
BahRamYou
32m ago
There's been a suspiciously long pattern of US leaders thinking "we can solve this problem with strategic bombing, no ground invasion necessary." But then it turns out the strategic bombing is actually not that powerful, especially in a country as large and mountainous as Iran. This is a country roughly the size of the entire US west. It seems like they will always, inevitably be able to hide an enrichment facility somewhere. North Korea and Pakistan certainly did.
Didn't both Romney and Obama stake a claim on the technocrat lane? Wasn't the argument for Hillary supposed to be her competence? Biden's first term was initially supposed to be a return to the technocracy of Obama even though he turned out to not be that at all.
More options
Context Copy link