Consept

It's hilarious that Putin said Tucker didnt ask hard enough questions

I never understood the point of bootcamps, at least at that price, if you have a couple wings to go out with you'd save so much money, it must be the same thing. I once saw Todd doing a bootcamp in Amsterdam, I kinda wanted to tag along just to see how it went but had my ex with me

@Someone here Taking it back to the op, i agree with a lot of it. What id slightly disagree with is that for men obviously looks are important, but I think that comes into play for short term dating. As in if a girls hot you want to bang her but you might not necessarily want to be with her long term if her personality is trash. So she might hook you with the sex but she would need more to keep you. Women it's opposite you'd need personality and something about you to hook her and then you will grow more attractive on her eyes.

@Karmadhi I will say that i respect your open to considering my points of view and also open to changing your mind, that is a great quality. So this issue i have is that your equating incidents that are not even close to comparable. This Benzema example is literally one conservative French Senator saying that Benzemas citizenship should be revoked, which it wasnt. Its one mans opinion that has no legal bearing, in fact it should even prove that freedom of speech is allowed in France because hes being allowed to say potentially anti-muslim things even with a fairly liberal government. This is in no way comparable to Putin has done for those speaking out. Freedom to protest and freedom of the press are not just nice things for a society to have, they are essential for a society. Reason being the press and protests can act as a mouthpiece for people, if both these outlets are shutdown the society is completely oppressed. In that situation they have no choice but to go along with their leader or leave the country. So im not presenting it as just a fun thing that you can say what you want freely, without it as a society you do not have individual liberty or even collective liberty. This means that your leader can send you to war for whatever reason he sees fit without any repercussions. You may say that the USA has invaded loads of countries in the past, which is true but for most of them there was heavy backlash which even contributed to presidents being voted out, this is not something that can happen in Russia. Basically freedom of speech and invading countries are not independent variables. But you can make the argument that Putin is a great leader which is fine, maybe some countries need a strongman leader, but you cant simultaneously make the argument that the people in Russia are more free than democratic countries.

Theres no absolute freedom of speech of course as a society couldnt really function but there are levels to it. If you speak up against the Ukraine war in Russia you will be sentanced to 15 years in prison, I dont think any country comes anywhere near that level of punishment. I live in the UK and have many muslim friends who post daily with extremely violent imagery against Israel and as far as i know none of them have had facebook or instagram accounts even banned let alone being prosecuted for it. There are near weekly marches and protests in support of palestine and nothing has happened. This is similar in other countries which is in fact why a lot of far right ideologies can even get in power in the first place or at least run for power. So i dont think Putins Russia equates with other countries shutting down free speech at all. They dont invade other countries and work with other nations. Theyre not perfect by any stretch and there are issues with human rights etc it helps that theyre very rich nations as well. But essentially they dont create problems with other nations, whereas Russia constantly does. You can post whatever you want, you might be mistaking social persecution for state persecution. Social just means people will disagree with you on social media maybe some acquaintances will judge you or something, but no ones going to come and arrest you because you say Ukraine should make peace. Whereas if you said Russia was wrong in Russia you would literally get arrested. Heres where there seems to be a blind spot, if i hate gay people and move to a country where they hate gay people and then talk about how i hate gay people and everyone in that country agrees with me, it doesnt mean that theres free speech it just means that everyone agrees with me. If i had the opinion gay people were great then i wouldnt feel comfortable to express that opinion. So in this case Russia definitely doesnt have more free speech, your friend just feels like that because he agrees with everything Putin says. The real test is if you say something against the government how would they react, in Russia you get 15 years in prison and in the west you may but probably wont get your facebook account restricted.

'Putting the oligarchs in order' actually means he imprisoned the ones that didnt side with him and empowered the ones that did side with him. The way you put it is as if he cleaned up the corruption of the rich, which is not true he just made sure they were loyal to him. Roman Abramovich for example was a multi billionaire up until the Ukraine war and was allowed to exist with many perks because he was cool with Putin. I dont think people were saying Russia was a hellhole, but its not a free country in that you cant credibly vote for an alternative and you cant speak out against Putin - "Russia clamped down harder Friday on news and free speech than at any time in President Vladimir V. Putin's 22 years in power, blocking access to Facebook and major foreign news outlets, and enacting a law to punish anyone spreading “false information” about its Ukraine invasion with up to 15 years in prison." - New York Times What im confused with is that you seem to be someone that would be for freedom of speech, during the pandemic a lot people complained that they werent allowed to share 'alternative science' however there was never anything close to a 15 year prison sentence threatened, the worst was being banned on facebook for a month or having a fact check under a post. So it doesnt quite square how some of the same people complaining about freedom of speech during the pandemic are actually agreeing with Putins methods.

The problem is this justification doesnt work when put onto other countries, it justifies pretty much every invasion. So Germany in 1939 could claim, and im sure they did, that they felt threatened by Europe and Jewish people so that justified invading Poland. Even now, USA and Europe can claim they feel threatened by Russia, North Korea, China and justify invading those countries, arguably there would be much more justification with at least Russia and North Korea than Russia had to invade Ukraine. One could say the reason for invasion was Putin felt threatened but to say its justified ill be curious to hear that argument.

Anything he can't control that can have an impact on the world will be threatening to him

Using your analogy it would be more like there is a strict father who lives on the street and doesnt want to be part of the neighbourhood alliance. He doesnt like the fact that his neighbour has joined the alliance. He keeps encroaching on his neighbours land and moving his fence further and further. When the neighbour complains he uses aggression toward the neighbour and threatens to take over his house. The rest of the street dont think its fair and demand the strict father stops doing what hes doing, but the strict father refuses because he doesnt like the alliance as he feels he should be able to treat his neighbour as he wishes. No one has a problem with most dictators or those with different beliefs running their countries, no ones trying to war with North Korea for example even though they are arguably worse. The issues come when they try and do stuff to other countries.The whole point of the EU, Nato etc is to protect these smaller countries, and its worked as there was the longest period without war in the EU, so should we just leave everyone to it to take over and war with each other, or would it make more sense to work together?

The obvious argument against this perspective is that in a democracy, young and speak out against those in power. There are numerous examples of protest and public opinion changing policy, in fact most democracies have to take into account what the majority are saying otherwise no one would even consider them for office. Or of course they have to at least spin it in a way where they are tackling policies the people want tackled. That being said of no system by itself is going to be perfect and as you say it's down to individuals within that system. In a dictatorship the people literally have no power and no right to speak out against those in power. As I said Putin has literally killed or imprisoned those that have spoken out against him and his regime. He can basically do bad shit and not be called on it, whereas those in power that do bad shit in democracies may not get another term or maybe impeached or whatever. I don't think you'll find any dictatorships throughout history or at present that would be less corrupt than democratic nations and where the people are better off.

Well said, i think the great trick authoritarians pull off or attempt to pull off, is that an authoritarian government with them in charge is a step forward. The reality is its a step back which is known by democracy because they've all been through it in their past.

From your comment Im not sure you understand what a democracy is vs a dictatorship, its not a pejorative against a country its just how state is organised. Russia is a dictatorship because Putin eliminates or silences all political rivals, critics and dissenters (sometimes through assassination), he has extended years in power(20 years+), he has absolute authority, this is a dictatorship, i dont think any person could credibly argue it was a democracy. Democracy is essentially the rule of the majority through elected officials and shared power amongst the people to vote in an elected representative. In most cases with a maximum of three terms. So this is nothing to do the west deciding its a democracy or dictatorship. The two notions are basically the opposite of each other, one is rule by one person and the other is rule by majority of the people, its pretty much as binary as you can get. So is your argument here that you get more freedom in a dictatorship? Or at least different freedoms. They dont really have freedom in the situation you proposed, they just have the will of the leader, so for example if the leader did want everyone to take vaccines he would have the power to force them to do so. If he doesnt and you happen to agree with him, thats not really freedom thats just luck that you agree with him, most likely if you live in a dictatorship you would just agree with everything they say anyway as thats how youve been raised. The reason why certain countries had the restrictions they did is because they are trying to look out for the majority which does show that its a democracy. Lets hypothetically say vaccines and stopping unvaccinated people going into public establishments was the right cause of action, Putin and other dictators chose not to do that for whatever reason and that couldve killed millions of people, he was the only one to decide that regardless of experts, its not like he took a vote. Brazils president who chose to do this for his people made Brazil the second worst country in the world affected by covid, in fact the leaders of individual states had to rebel against him and bring in safety measures themselves for their states. So no youre not gonna be more free in a dictatorship.

Interesting article on why Russia isnt a democracy - https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/30/russia-democracy-putin-soviet-union-cold-war/

Well yes but the foreign power could not just invade by themselves, there would be no point and it usually just doesnt work, like when US invaded Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. What makes a successful deposition is when there is significant power within the country that goes against the current power. Foreign powers are really only a tool within that. This is the same as saying democracy is a threat to dictatorship as much dictatorship is a threat to democracy. Of course they cant really co-exist peacefully, they are antithetical to each other. This is not to say US is a perfect democracy btw. But having a dictator who is liable to invade another country because he doesnt 'feel' safe, seems like a dangerous thing, because where does this end? If he invades Ukraine successfully, he could then reasonably argue that Poland should give up any weapons or Kazakstan or wherever because they are now closer. Keep in mind Hitler used the false justification that Poland was planning to encircle Germany with its allies to then invade Poland. Point being its a dangerous situation to have one person with so much power as they can use whatever justifications to just do what they want, which has been played out countless times through history. As they say 'those who dont know history are doomed to repeat it'.

Exactly I found this video relevant to the topic -

@Bobby_2021 Leo is right the biggest threat to any dictator will always be the dissenters within their own country, this is why they kill or imprison them as soon as they can, especially if the dissenter holds any type of significant power or wealth. If you look at any desposed dictator it's usually either through a civil war or through a revolution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deposed_politicians?wprov=sfla1 A dictator by their very nature is going to create enemies within their own country as the people haven't had a say in decisions, for example a lot of Russians maybe against the war in Ukraine but they will never be able to say that publicly. So to keep control of his country, Putin has to invoke a level of fear that no one dare speak out, this is necessary to keep the power he has. He cannot risk letting people have a vote because that may spell the end of his reign. Putin is saying whatever he needs to, to justify actions but ultimately its all really a distraction. If the west do want to have missiles next to him in Ukraine its because they are wary of anyone who holds that much power in the way that he does and I don't blame them to be honest. Dictators through the years have been extremely dangerous and Putin provably very corrupt. So to use your example if a known criminal who has a lot of weapons lives next door to you, you might want to keep some weapons yourself just in case.

@Rafael Thundercat What I mean is that I don't think they're solely unintentionally doing it, i think men have a big part to play as well as i outlined.

Ive seen this guy before, he comes across as really trying to appeal to red pill guys but with a psychological background which gives him a certain authority. Thats not to say everything he says is nonsense but he is quite clearly biased and i think he panders a lot rather than actually speaking truth. His presentation is really about not showing any emotion as to give away this bias. Speaking on the topic at hand, ultimately majority of women want long term relationships but the issue is that women in the modern age dont need men for the same things they may have needed them for previously. As such their standards have increased, they need more connection, emotional intelligence, good conversation etc. Men in a lot of cases find it hard to reach these standards but also (at least the ones left out of the dating market) havent even got a lot of positive attributes their fathers had. Add to that social media, dating apps etc makes it very difficult for these guys. From experience i just dont think most women want polygamous situations but would probably rather have that than a guy who hasnt get any of his shit together physically, mentally, psychologically etc. The psychologist seems to be saying women should lower their standards but i think its on man to up their quality. In nature you would never have a situation where the male wouldnt do whatever was necessary to attain the female, if he did have a victim mindset he would just die out. Its harsh on us because there have been so many changes recently but it is what it is and you have to use it to improve and get what you want or dont.

Statistically, having a good marriage can boost your life in many ways. Key word being good though, a bad marriage can really destroy you so it's a lot to do with choosing the right person and also being the right person.

It doesn't even necessarily have to be fudging. Where I'm coming from is that I've had 2 long term previous relationships, which I more just kinda fell into, rather than meeting different people and deciding what might be the best fit. So coming at it from my perspective now I wouldn't really want to just dive into something else without having met and spent time with a few different women. It doesn't have to be sex or a relationship. I'm just saying I wouldn't lie to anyone, if they ask I'd say what's happening ie just out of a relationship, looking to meet and date different women and if someone is a good fit then take it to the next level. @Princess Arabia thanks your response and thanks to @meta_male as well. Yeah this is the line of thinking I'm kinda going down. Ultimately I don't want to hurt anyone but I think it would be cool to just meet new people, whether that's a deeper connection or not. It's not a lifestyle I'd want indefinitely, but probably til I get the feeling to settle down properly, which realistically I don't think would be that long

I get you but say you're dating to find the right one, or just want to meet people in between relationships? So not really to boost ego but more to have different experiences temporarily. Also not lying, so if asked one might say that you are seeing other people with a view if the right one comes along it would change things

Yeah if you watch like the next 5 mins of the film, they're a couple just doing a role play bit. So aside from it being exaggerated because it's a film, it's also exaggerated within the context of the film as the characters are doing an extreme version of something. Interesting how you have an idea of how things are and then tack it on to examples you can find.

The whole point of Tucker doing this interview was to lay the ground work for Trump being able to reason with Putin, but in reality its not worked because Putin dictated (pun intended) the whole interview and wasnt pushed back on anything.

Definitely agree, but the issue is that if you let one man have such power and then sympathise with his rhetoric you could end up with another Hitler situation. If you go pre WW2 what Hitler said could make sense in terms of how Germany had been treated, in which case it then becomes easier for him to gain more power and then do what he did. I believe countries that are insular, have a bit of a chip on their shoulder (rightly or wrongly) and have a leader who has total power are usually going to be a threat to the world as their interests are only for their own country often at the expense of others. Putin falls into this category, but what i cant really understand is why some Americans are supporting him, it seems quite weird considering the anti-commie rhetoric that has been propagated by the US for so long and how it is direct opposition with the US way of life.

Putin often revises history in a way that suits his goals https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine Ultimately his mission is to make Russia a super power and reunite the soviet Union. This can't be just through force he has to change the narrative and unite the Russian people to believe there is no choice but to do what he's doing.