zurew

Because its a good way to share ideas with a relatively low effort and to make a lot of money (especially if the the site that you use has a time on site businessmodel). - and it seems like more and more people recognize it, also the demand is growing for it. You can have the long podcast format, and then you can make a clip chanel as well, so you can profit a lot from it. I think podcast format is really good, because it has many spontaneous elements to it, and it feels more authentic than other formats.

With all those monsters and beings waiting for you in the corners? That guy is very young and very talented.

Caring about stats is not directly related to being an SJW. You should care about stats if you really care about the facts that you often talk about. So basically, you have a very strong stance on this issue, and a lot of assumptions, but you haven't checked the stats, and you still not open to their view? Nope, you care about a certain set of people, who had a certain lived experience about this issue, and you ignore all the contrary ones. Whats your steelman version of feminism? If you say man-hate, then we don't have much to talk about here, because you don't understand feminism as an ideology at all. If you claim to understand it, then I would be curious about your steelman version of it.

Thats confirmation bias. You are in an echo chamber as well, if you don't care about opinions, that are outside of your paradigm. If you are selecting anti feminist women, of course the picture you will get from them will be totally different from a feminist. You can't understand feminism if you don't know or care about their thoughts and ideology, and arguments. So you are not basing your stance on stats?

what I am suggesting is that your analysis of the facts are not impartial and ideologically motivated (which is not a problem), but you have to be honest here. If you truly believe that feminism has a net negative effect on society, then why wouldn't you be against it? Also, making judgement calls is inherently subjective.

Of course it was a loaded question, because it was about a prescription. The reason why he was asking about a prescription, is because your disagreement is not a fact based disagreement, but a disagreement about the how it should or should not be. You can have the same set of facts and make different prescriptions.

There are women who are masculine, and there are men who are feminine. In other words there are men who are more emotional than women and there are women who are more logical than men. What makes it authentic? Facts that are true for some men and for some women, but again I have to remind you, its not true for all men and women.

If you totally reject this idea, then this contradicts your whole argument againts feminism. In this discussion masculinity and femininity only means a category, where you can find a set of behaviour expressions. Basically, both masculinity and femininity is about a way you act in the world, so they are learnable. I would switch the word men with the word masculine and I would switch the word women with the word feminine. The reason for that, is because it describes our society much better, and it holds less dogma. Yes, I agree, but we are not talking about most men or most women. We are talking about a specific set of man and women (feminists).

Surely this hypothetical mother wanted a dysfunctional man for herself, right? - most of the time it doesn't go this way, at the start everything is good, and after some time the relationship can radically decline and people can change a lot. Depends on how masculine women we are talking about, not all feminists are highly masculine, sure they generally more masculine than other women, however, they are not necessarily highly masculine. But lets assume most of them are highly masculine. They can find themselves feminine men and they can live happily or there are other relationship dynamics as well that could work, the traditional is just one. I don't think feminism entails misandry, again, not all feminist hold the idea, that 'all men are evil' or that men are at fault for everything. Women has the capacity to be masculine just as men. Its natural to have that capacity, so why is it unnatural to explore that part of yourself or to express that part of yourself?

Okay, lets test this idea then. Lets say you have a loving mother and you have an everyday drunk father who beats you and your mother every day when he gets home from work. Do you still say that the idea of divorce is so unbelievably bad? How is it man-hating at its core? So you are suggesting that there is no women on Earth, who would consider herself as a feminist and who is married? Thats not always possible, especially when the two parent are not compatible at all. There are many many cases where its better to divorce compared to trying to make the relationship longer and make everything even worse for yourself and for the kid(s) as well. You will become even more emotionally attached and the ability to divorce will be lesser and lesser. You are not telling what it is, you are telling what you assume it is. Thats a built in assumption you have. Not all female need male protection, and what do you mean by male protection here? Lets dig into this then. What do you need to be built for independence? This is not always true, I have seen many woman who were more masculine in their childhood than guys.

Divorce is not always bad, and divorce is not inherent to feminism. There are feminists who are happily married. Broken homes are not inherent to feminism either. You are highlighting and only focusing on hardcore fanatic feminisits and ignore all the healthy aspects of it. Growing up with one parent is better than living in a place where the only interaction you see between your parents is fighting and arguing. Also, higher divorce rate can stem from a million other things than feminism. Why would it be dysfunctional or unsustainable?

@Jowblob I have two questions for you: Whats your prescription to Ukrainian people If you would be Zelensky, how would you try to solve this war problem?

"Feminism makes women more masculine... Umm...do you agree?" I would say that feminism emerged, because women got more masculine not the other way around, although its possible, that the ideology itself makes women more masculine.

I think it depends on the methods how a company develops its game. Because if we are talking about prototypes , then if the leak is at the first or second prototype, then it might give a false image how the end result will feel or look like.

@Leo GuraYeah, the hype is big. Probably the biggest reason why this leak wont have a strong negative effect on them , is because Rockstar is a strong brand , otherwise an upcoming game brand would have been probably fucked by a leak like this.

Yeah, but if its presented in poor quality, then its bad marketing, and it can have a reverse effect. First impression is important with everything.

What did they say, that was a clear lie? That lab leak theory is 100% not true, or that the lab leak theory might not be true? The first sentence could be said that its a lie, because there isn't any clear evidence on this topic, so to say anything with 100% confidence is dishonest. - So if they said the first sentence, then I agree that thats a lie and its dishonest.

If you think that my answer to that question is relevant to this discussion , then i am okay ending it here.

That will derail this thread even more, and its not relevant to this specific discussion. Lets focus back to the main topic and lets see your reasoning why you think, your system is structurally better to a democratic system. I already said, that I am willing to work with happiness for the sake of the argument.

@Kksd74628 No, we don't agree. It only seems that we agree, because you give me a question, where the only rational option is to choose happiness, but that doesn't mean, that hierarchically I hold happiness at the highest level, it only means that at that super isolated case, I would choose happiness. Also, what valuesystem I hold for myself could be slightly or vastly different from what I would want a society to have (because of numerous reasons). - But this part isn't relevant, for the sake of the argument, I can take your values for granted. Here is a relevant question for you: Structurally what benefits your system has compared to a democractic system. This is the only thing thats relevant here and of course the cons as well.

Calm it down, because your head is way too up in your ass right now. Would choose happiness, but right now we are way too fucking removed from reality and from politics. We never base our core values on the ground, that we will only live 1 minutes long. Thats distorts everything and that question makes long term thinking and planning and the big picture,system thinking worthless.

I understand your perspective, thats why I know the limitations and the tradeoff aswell, and I dont agree with it. I would still go with development, even if I would get less happiness at the end of the day.

@Kksd74628 Analyzing both of those choices from multiple angles, I would still choose development. If we would start to optimize everything for our development, we would eventually end up in a place, where everyone is developed asf and everyone is enlightened. That place and world sounds much better to me, because there isn't just happiness, but much more.