BlueOak

Yes. Contributing to a weird 1980's-like image over substance, or perhaps because of it. From dating and socialising, to business and culture. Where the computer or TV screen highlights one aspect of life at the expense of everything else. Which is always going to be fragile, 2D and easily broken. That one video you saw, or that one comment becomes everything about that person, all anyone talks about or remembers. This makes someone look like X, that's all I know about him/her through this limited lens we have. So then, especially professionally people making a living, defend the image that was created, identify with it, and focus on trying to maintain something they decided was useful to them. At least it's helping people stop caring so much about what others think, by using these pseudo-identities projected online, like any imbalanced part of life. Its responsible for the fragility of people's self-identities, having no real thing of substance to be tethered to, and people searching for meaning elsewhere.

People on the left, the actual left, not the center. Dislike fake outrage more than you, because unlike you, people keep telling them that this is what they are. People on the left value substantive issues, with depth and meaning. Things they can sink their teeth into. Rightwingers will generally not debate them anymore, because they dismantle their perspectives and force them to confront their values from completely opposing angles. Generally, right-wingers can only debate corporate liberal centrists, and then say see they don't care about actual issues, they just like being polite. (They don't care as much because the center is the reality, and they already have more of what they want for the most part) Please demonstrate, any leftist, anytime, who primarily thinks like this. Give me one link that isn't a mainstream media news network or liberal centrist with only vague awareness of what we are talking about. And no Pakman doesn't count for the most part, as he's just a slight step away from the center. This shouldn't be a big ask, because everyone slips up sometime over the years they are broadcasting. If it's an actual leftist (which I doubt). Then i'll be able to point to the 500 pieces they did of substance.

People have different preferences. That will always be true. Trends will change that will always be true. If we are being blunt. Damsel in distress females, or princesses that want you to save them, make my skin crawl. Instant turn off. If she's not intelligent and capable she's not my partner. If she doesn't challenge me, there's no fire there. If she's got no wants in life or drives beyond just having kids, there is no shared interest either. If she just wants to support me and do what I say, meh, that'd be so fake I'd walk away in a heartbeat. Nothing drives me nuts more than someone agreeing with me, just because I asked them to or wanted it. I fully understand why some people prefer a quiet home life, with a submissive partner. More power to them. That sounds like a pet to me and I can just buy a cat, or better a guard dog to look after the place.

Sounds a bit like falling down: Or if you want the comedic lighter version office space: Office space is probably in my top 20 movies of all time, close anyway.

I have never heard anyone on a left wing channel say I am not voting trump because of his 5am tweets. That's just something to laugh at or comic relief.

She's not running independently. She's in a primary, if she loses then you can pick again.

Can you explain why you think its incompatible with immigration? Social unrest does happen from immigration, which is a factor in people feeling like it is a peaceful community to support families in the first place, I am not sure if you mean that though? It's offest by the economic benefit of having economic immigration fix gaps in the economy, without any substantial delay or problems within the domestic workforce. Without that, there will always be a delay before a shortage of jobs can be corrected, especially with manual industries which older people simply can't do. (AI Workers being a possibility) Where are you getting that 3% figure? Uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/land-use-in-england-2022/land-use-statistics-england-2022 The only % of relevance when it comes to supporting the population, is what is left of the natural area. In England just 6% of the land is protected. With 20% currently open land, forests, and water, some of that 20% is used for things like timber, or fishing, etc. Also without the forests supplying oxygen, and the natural biosphere being maintained much of the quality of life in the urban areas would be reduced. Such as air quality, potential medicines, the quality of the soil, food/water etc. Increasingly a lot of the land that is left cannot be used effectively, which is why it isn't being used for anything. Marshland or flood plains for example 68% is agricultural, meaning vertical farms or less cattle could make a huge difference to space savings here. With all the utilities other than farming it's about 12% give or take here, (If you add up all the other %'s including gardens) unlike other places we haven't serious environmental damage to any large areas making them unlivable. If you want to make a new town, it takes more than just the housing to support the population, food being the biggest concern, although a fair chunk of that land goes to industrial products such as cotton or exports to support people's livelihood. We are straining the limits in many European countries as to what can be maintained with what we have. This is one reason we don't have enough money after expenses for the average person, meaning people are less likely to have a family. Its not just about where people live, its about all the things that go into supporting that, especially food. If people are living more densely packed, generally speaking, it's easier and more efficient to provide services for them. Where I live out in the countryside my quality of life has reduced significantly due to efficiency savings on healthcare, schooling or public transport. I'd probably die before reaching a hospital for some conditions (we did campaign locally to keep the local hospital open partially, and won a temporary victory for now) Europe: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Land_use_statistics If we look at all of Europe, including many of the less developed areas in the east, we are looking at about 39% agriculture (which surprises me) 35% forested areas, and a lot more timber industry as an example. 15% unused or abandoned. I'd like to see why so much is being abandoned and where. Leaving about 11% either used or unlivable from environmental damage, excluding a small amount for fishing. I think Sweden again might have biased your view on this, as it is an outlying case. Just like England might have biased mine based on farm coverage. Overall if we look at the places experiencing the most birth rate problems, they are the more developed, with higher populations, more competition, higher stress levels, and less space. They also get a healthy amount of immigration to maintain their workforce, which people are trying to reverse, amplifying the potential problems the country's aging populations face.

Both sides of this have to vote against their own nature. Conservatives to attack institutions, backing a weak man with a victim mentality. Liberals to stomach an ethnic cleansing, backing a supposed liberal taking a rightwing approach from the 1950's. Crazy times. Trump does have the populist support yes. However, the entire campaign trump will be in a courtroom with breaks being relatively rare. He'll have no money left for campaigning. His entire line will be oh poor me, I'm the victim, which to a rightwinger has to sound pathetic and not a 'winner'. Then he'll be trying to undermine institutions that he feels personally slighted him, which conservatives should naturally hate. Most of the money people give him will go on his court fees, so he's effectively begging. Further on top of his already two civil cases, and 4 criminal cases, he's just been hit with another wave of potential lawsuits from people who were injured on Jan 6th, and I think the police that were hurt have a good case. Not to mention people who will be suing him for libel when their professional roles have finished, afterward to not conflict with their current interests, I would with the venom and conspiracy nonsense that comes out of his mouth, if I were the clerk for example, the vote checkers doing their civil duties, or a prosecutor. It's going to be a minor miracle if he personally, not professionally but personally doesn't go bankrupt as well as losing his right to do business in New York. Also he might just lose it and break down entirely under the stress. *I think Biden is more conservative than Trump at this point on many issues, which is why you hear of actual ideological conservatives switching over. Its not much different for labor in the UK.

BTW to not imbalance this too much. The Democrats just canceled their primary, so they are no bastions of democracy either. Both parties (corporate owners) just want to select one man they want and have you legitimatize them. Just right now you've got a demagogue with a revenge fantasy, who is so fragile he can't accept a sliver of criticism without attacking the person/institution who gave it, or making up some wild conspiracy about why it happened, and a guy who's mostly asleep reading a script someone gave him, representing his biggest donors interests exclusively. One scenario is substantially better than the other for everyday people in the short to medium term.

Oh about the hair thing just shave it down, its the eyebrows that are annoying.

LOL No you do, you really do. Its only something you are going to appreciate as you age, in too many ways to mention. So yeah if you want to excel in something you need youth for, go do it now, not later.

You are an individual. Others exist. You are the absolute. Nothing is separate. Both of these things are true. When you accept that's exactly how reality is, and want that impossible duality in your mind to dissolve or to be integrated, it will be.

All of life is settling for the lesser evil. There is nothing you can tell me that I can't find evil in. I realized that the other day, and it finally eliminated the last of my idealism. With no hyperbole or idealism at all: You've got a move toward fascism in Trump, and all the problems that brings. You've got a move toward corporatism in Biden, and all the problems that brings. However, reaffirming the general public's trust in law and order, government institutions, and the vote, then removing conspiracy from political discourse. Is certainly worth one narcissist called Trump going to jail. Putting up with a corporate-owned politician, who can barely keep the facade of it called Biden, is worth not electing a dictator. Trump's told everyone what he's going to do, and although I don't believe a word he spews at 5am in his delusional social media posts. I'd rather not see America slide further from democracy and into dictatorship, because you pull the UK with you when you do. Trump would gut social security and things people need to survive, Trump will be running on 4 years of coming after judges, and prosecutors, and pulling you all closer to civil war, it will just be his personal revenge fantasy. It was ridiculous to have him as the candidate again. Any other conservative or even wannabe fascist would have avoided this problem. He'll probably be in jail before he even gets to the election, and broke. All the term will be him telling everyone how great he is, doing nothing for anyone else except building ineffectual walls people can dig under or climb over, spouting conspiracies every morning. Possibly bombing mexico. Winning his fictional war on Christmas, and ripping up as many safeguards as he can to create a dictatorship. He wants a dictatorship, he keeps saying so. Project 2025 was created by the same people trying to get him elected, you want a move towards a dystopian nightmare be my guest, I just hope we distance ourselves from America if you go that route, because I don't feel like getting arrested in the streets fighting it.

Also, have you ever noticed that almost every other industry has to become efficient, and competitive, find new ways to make money, new markets, and cut their costs? The film industry gets to overinflate everything to the nth degree to insulate itself from any real pressure, then complains, and falls flat on its face when it hits a hurdle. It's like there are no real capitalists in Hollywood anyway. If there were they know that without innovation and constant adaption, you die out anyway. Which is exactly what's happening in this case.

It doesn't completely eliminate all factors slowing birthrate to give people space to have a family, or a home at all, but it certainly provides the conditions required for it to happen. I am not talking about sticking people in a large highrise, I am thinking of small apartment complexes that house a few families at once in a large area, with a garden, as opposed to single houses. Most land is not taken up by skyscrapers, or large buildings at all. Most land is taken up by single-family houses across estates in the UK and much of Europe (*and non-vertical farmland). Again the reason people don't see that as the residence to raise families, is because they've been taught it. Generally, apartments are designed to be small, with no garden. The Western culture at least supports the preconceived notion of an ideal family home, in America with picket fences, in the UK with hedgerows as an example. So people feel inadequate when they cannot afford this culturally established ideal and put off having a family till they can. That means one or two things need to happen. Either a shift away from that stereotype AND/OR If we as a society sat down and properly designed family apartment complexes, we'd quadruple the available area for family homes, while not needing near as much additional infrastructure, or taking away land for things like farming or other industries. Again it would need a cultural shift, done through media, through education, and discourse such as we are having. Because I still don't think you understood what I said in full. I don't blame you, everyone is conditioned to want that large detached family home, so the thought of something else gets immediate pushback, and that's the problem I am trying to highlight with solutions for. So on immigration. WHY? I understand what you are saying to me, but you've not said how it relates to birthrate. Why are Muslims bad for birthrate? Then you talk about reducing world population but wanting to increase the birthrate? I'd like the world population down too, but those two goals conflict.

Disney is struggling because of a boring, overused, formulaic film series. It is struggling because they don't pay 50 upcoming filmmakers a small budget to make 50 independent films, then see if 5 work well to try 5 new film formulas. I say this because they love film formulas so much, it makes their shareholders happy. If it were me i'd do large competitions for independent film makers until I discovered a wealth of new talent.

Religion is not stopping people from procreation. It was a direct factor responsible for encouraging people to procreate. More development has little to do with increasing birthrate. The opposite is true if anything. I am no big fan of religion, but I think you are trying to make a cultural argument, even though I am not sure what that is exactly.

On one hand you say homeless or having a home the right size isn't a big factor, and on the other, you say it's a factor. Do you see the contradiction? Unless by urbanization you mean something other than less space or less competition for resources. By not having a home at all you cannot have a family. I can't put it any simpler than that. Its a direct contributor to birthrate. By filling the land with traditional homes space isn't well used, if instead traditional homes were redefined in the public mind to be large, healthy, efficient apartments, more people would feel like they had a family home in less space. They wouldn't be waiting until they had that large cottage or large house, they'd see examples of it in their media, and their culture reinforcing it. Dismissing economic concerns is outright wrong. You don't have kids by choice if you don't have the money, unless it's by accident. Few people out there are thinking I know let's have kids, and hope I can pay for them, just somehow out of nowhere. There is less traditional pressure to have kids because people are less affected by it, they are however still very influenced and affected by financial concerns. Yes it's just one factor, out of several, but it's there. Sweden is really skewing your view on this, its one of the most socially advanced countries on the planet.

Does anyone want the answer to this riddle? I mean really want it? 1) Stop ripping down Western institutions that help people. 2) Stop trying to divide up society to make a buck and pitting people against each other. 3) War isn't good for birthrate or the desire to settle down. 4) Welcome economic migration. - Rather than vilifying new people entering the country, make it easier, and then... 5) Make travel between countries easier. - So people can live in their own country still, stop mocking the attempts at hyper fast rail networks 6) Remove the corruption from attempts at travel between countries. These are big projects that need tough complicated regulation. 7) Support families and the creation of new homes. - Look at ways people can start new families, and do things that encourage and make it easier. 8) Support local agriculture and manufacturing, so goods can be purchased more cheaply at home, making families more affordable. 9) Stop denigrating traditionally masculine industries as 'lesser than' or not worth paying much. Such as manufacturing. If you want more masculine men, pairing with feminine women, to then have kids, give reason for them to exist, and be supported culturally. 10) Eliminate the concept of a billionaire, so wealth can go around to those who need it. Nobody needs thousands of millions to be beneficial to society. 11) Stop building large flat houses and look at building upwards, both in terms of farming but also for living. Make nice family-sized, energy-efficient, apartment complexes the norm. Use the land smartly, and make this norm on television shows, in political discourse, everywhere homes are talked about or shown, really normalize it over traditional cottages. 12) Stop ripping up globalism, so we can have countries specialise in certain industries, and thus all work together, rather than try to rip each other down. A stable planet, that is as cheap as we can make it, as supportive as we can make it, and allows as many people to flourish as possible, is the way to increase birthrate naturally. (This is another method in contrast or supportative with local production) 13) Allow a certain amount of social housing, or part-funded house for some time to get people off the streets. Or allow banks to selectively give loans to homeless people, where they have decided the risk in that particular person is worth the investment. Those with no drug use, a history of work or just being priced out of the area is an untapped resource. 14) Allow programs to get people into that selective group for banks or investors, slowly assist people who want to change their life into a place they can, to encourage them to work for a better life. I can keep throwing things up here but you get the idea. It's not that people don't know the solutions, there are smarter people than me out there, it's just difficult. I can't wait till this dynamic flips entirely and people start migrating to places with more space, cheaper local food, and cheaper local goods. People are going to lose their minds, then maybe enough people will start to embrace some of the steps needed. I can't emphasize enough that without affordable family homes, food, goods, energy, etc, nobody is going to have a family by choice. I wonder if you put the homeless population growth vs the birthrate how much of a correlation you'd get. Certainly, if you put - people able to afford a family home within 5 years vs birthrate I would bet a large correlation would appear.

Thank you. Method is much less important than result.

Please make posts about the transition from yellow to turquoise as and when they come to mind. It's appreciated as it's directly what I am looking for, as to why I stepped off that path last time. How do you personally deal with a direct and immediate threat that happens unexpectedly, and could happen again? There are lots of people in that situation across the world where some level of danger is unavoidable, so if I keep the question generalized it will apply to more situations. How is fear not the first reaction you experience? Thanks. @Breakingthewall

Good. Maybe they'll be enough space and resources to go around. We won't burn the planet to a desert chasing an extra buck, and we won't continue to cram humans into increasingly smaller spaces with less, just to maintain an arbitrary birthrate we've decided we want to maintain, or line some rich guys pockets more each month by increasing collective suffering. Positive things all around.

For the same reason we walk down the street wary of strangers. The safer your environment, peer group, finances, country, beliefs, and values, the more love you can express for the world you live in. If I am in a city, I am 100% switched on not letting my guard down. If I am walking down a quiet country road near where I live, I just have to watch out for cars, but I can enjoy the walk, the air, the environment and be 99.9999% sure I will have no problems whatsoever. That space to just exist without the need for safety or protection from outside threats is rare. So love is rare.

My 'tantrums' were me describing why he's a bad communicator, why one moderator is no better than another when they exclude different social groups or political ideologies. I was describing why he's promoting social unrest and why Twitter will lose a percentage of its user base. Sure I linked it up a bit to a wider context also to give it more depth. Your version of free speech doesn't exist, I am starting to realize it can't exist in the current way people approach an alternative viewpoint as a threat to their own. Had Musk paid lip service to centrist liberals, he would have shown more communication skills. I would have still been here with criticism, it depends how much you value image over substance. There is a certain percentage of liberal bias that just needs feelings and civility maintained and it's not without value either. If people are generally pleasant or show some respect to each other, the temperature goes down, and it's easier for them to interact. It's also easier for advertisers to use the platform without losing business. Again what you don't like is of little relevance to whether others share your view. If I were of your mindset or temperament i'd say 'get over it', 'stop throwing tantrums over what others are telling you'. This is the reality, and your complaining about the response others give what they see is nearly pointless, unless you are connecting with them somehow personally. Systems do rule individuals yes, and individuals make up the systems that rule them. One doesn't exist without the other. In the case of popular support dropping for something the system either crumbles, or if it's forcibly maintained there is social unrest again. Either aspect can be looked at, and doing so can make a difference. The brainwashing you are referencing is people trying to sell something and the way communication is currently flawed. I've mentioned I don't like the data collection which makes this possible. It's not as insidiously motivated as you are inferring, it's mostly just people trying to sell something, boost their favored political ideology (for money), and yes do damage while they do so. Almost every way communication is designed is harmful to a large whole. That's a wider conversation. The loudest voice gets heard, the most money gets heard, the most persistent person typing gets their medium promoted or heard, etc. - Its not a natural or healthy environment for a balanced or grounded communication medium. Just think how search engines are designed, forums are designed, tweets gets views, or YouTube views get views. Drama, false inventions, spam, money, hype, volume etc. - If these flaws were fixed, many of the systematic problems would die down with it. - One positive example are the media sites that have all the news channels rated by bias, and the trending stories according to bias for a multipolar view. Billionaires are extremely damaging to society, for some of the reasons i've listed above, and many others, not least of which is the amount of power it affords a single individual for misuse or just enforcing their values or beliefs. In this context, Musk is his own worst enemy. He can't conceive what he needs to, to achieve what he wants. He doesn't have the skillset, the temperament, the willingness to delegate, enough people who aren't yes men around him. He's got way over-invested emotionally and made this business his identity, which leads to poor decisions. Like insulting advertisers, then saying its their fault for leaving. As i've said, if you alienate liberals, you won't have liberals on the platform. Socialists are not friends of billionaires, my words would be banned in 5 minutes if I accessed that part of myself on X, and it got any views. So half of the human experience is disallowed. There is a limited window of communication that will be allowed on X, and it may come with less cost because fewer people will be there, which might mean it can get by on less advertising revenue. I don't use Instagram you'll be unsurprised to hear, no interest in just viewing other people's photo albums, it seems a bit weird to me unless it was a friends. I am not sure what meta is in this context. I've heard of Threads being an alternative to Twitter? So we'll see about that. Meta, if you mean the attempt at VR for the millionth time in my lifetime, I don't see it. VR is so inconvenient and expensive to use for the average person. All the other things you need to do in life offline (or online) can't be done while wearing VR, its clumsy and always about half as useful or responsive as a decent UI in 2D. MMOs had their time, we did second life already, and it was fun but now niche. For all the reasons Second Life is a niche product, an attempt at recreation will be niche. It may get some new people trying the experience for the first time, but I can all but predict how it will go having lived that experience once before.

Elon musks maturity level, or level of 'civility' is your and the liberal-bias interest not mine. I think I've repeatedly said it but that's more blunt. I understand if you want to resist what other people consider important, good luck with trying to change what people care or don't about. Save yourself a headache and just don't bother, it'd save Musk a headache as well, but a good communicator would already understand that before they spoke a word, and balance their message as a result for a large group of differing perspectives. He'd rightly be blamed if his platform allowed people planning insurrection or riots to flourish. So yeah fair point and names should be dropped to better define it or for fairness's sake. I do and have advocated for privacy. I think people sharing the fine details of their life on facebook is dumb. I still, to this day, dislike CCTV cameras everywhere but have accepted grudgingly they do more good than harm. I think the level of data collection generally going on is already a dystopian reality, because of the way it's used to manipulate populations, often against their interests. Microchips are pretty close to being used now if people can master biotech integration with the body. You'd need to tell me what the targeted ad campaign was so I can look into it, I don't use facebook. Systems are individuals. Every time I criticically analyze a perspective it's because its part of a system. If we were islands as individualist-bias believes no action or inaction would affect another. Perhaps I do spend too much time looking at the individual's method of reasoning though, I will take that into consideration. Also, if you were to have presented the system more in your posts, we'd be talking about that more, not our own perceptional biases.