aurum

Why? It sounds like growth. Being happy-go-lucky all the time is usually self-deception.

You're make some good points. It's possible we will see more multi-generational living as we exit SD Orange.

Now we are talking about two different things. I've not been commenting on what your vision of what multi-generational living would look like. I've been commenting on recent events and how I see their effects.

It's different but not too different. They mostly just get some good vibes from you. Most won't even notice unless you directly interact with them.

There may be some western bias towards independence. But that does not prove your solution is correct either. Your solution must stand on its own merits, not simply because the west resists it.

I don't think communists in charge will solve that problem. They will simply become the new bourgeois. Communism promises to abolish class, private property and the state. But in actuality, they will never achieve this. Even if they succeed in overthrowing the capitalists, all these dynamics will be recreated in a different way. There will always be, and should be, some social hierarchy. And that within the classes of this hierarchy, there will always be some tension. The proletariat will advocate for the proletariat. And the bourgeois will advocate for the bourgeois. What's necessary then is not some proletariat revolution, but a dynamic systems balancing. No class gets to dominate the other. It's fine to advocate for the proletariat. That's why most people become communists. But the downside is they often lack this systems view.

There will always be bourgeois. What's needed is not to get rid of the bourgeois, but to keep them in check.

I hope you understand the consequences of what you're asking for.

I understand that's what you're arguing for. It's fine to want those things, but the question is how do you actually achieve it? You cannot just assume kids moving back in with parents = solving atomization. Because in this case, that's not what is happening.

I do not prioritize fighting the bourgeois or dismantling capitalism. So our fundamental frameworks are different.

What's expected is that a younger generation of healthy adults should not be asymmetrically dependent on their aging parents. The parents are still independent and in control. Why do they get to own their own home? This does not solve that. It just creates enmeshment.

I think it's more problem than healing. Calling it "multi-generational communal living" is a stretch. It's really younger adults dependent on older ones. The dependency is asymmetric and reflects the fact that younger adults in particular are struggling to provide their own survival. This creates resentment, stifling and lack of groundedness in younger adults.

Then you will be raging against nationalists for the rest of your life. You will never succeed. Nation-states are going nowhere. When is "some point"? 5 years? 50 years? 500 years? If your solutions are only useful 500 years from now, you have no real solutions. Just idealizations.

No they are NOT. You may feel they are dead, but the vast majority of the world population does not agree with you. And they will fight you to the death. Even a globally integrated society will still require nations. In the same way that the United States still requires states and cities, even though it is united.

We disagree if you think the US is some kind of unique evil. There is nothing unique about the US. This is the exact same game that has been playing out since the beginning of time: survival and power. Every nation would behave like the US if they could. This is what history has shown us. They only don't because they can't. And of course the US understands this and therefore wants to remain on top, which is why they will never give up power. Is it fair? No. It is self-justifying? Yes. Nonetheless, this is the situation we are in. Any serious solution you propose must contend with this. Otherwise you are just fantasizing, not doing real political thinking.

I didn't suggest we shouldn't unite. Uniting is the point of stronger global institutions. That's what uniting looks like.

I would like to see stronger global institutions that all nations are subject to. There is nothing particularly unique about the US, in the sense that global superpowers have always been rogue. Geopolitics are about power, and those with power decide what happens. Even if you could theoretically reel in the US, what then? Another global superpower will emerge and behave exactly as the US does now. So my focus is not strictly on the US. It's more broadly about the challenge of superpowers.

You can do with a place like Cambodia because it's a small, undeveloped nation. The US is the world superpower. It'll never agree to it, and no one has the geopolitical leverage to make it happen.

That will solve nothing. You cannot just dissolve these kind of problems away.

Contemplate it. Have you ever experienced space outside your consciousness?

"Space" is inside your consciousness.

You just don't conceptualize it as push-pull.

Pickup techniques are given to you because they demonstrate what actual good flirting looks like. The point is not to ultimately destroy the techniques. The point is to make them natural and unconscious, rather than forced. That's just called being an attractive man.

I get that it's important for you to deconstruct pickup. But there really is no way of getting around push-pulls. Push-pull just is what flirting is. You don't need to force it, but you're not getting rid of them either.