Basman

I get the hustle but this whole pick-up thing comes off as so manipulative and gamey sometimes. The crazy part is that girls don't even recognize all the tactics on display. All the work that goes into it all. They are so in their own little world.

The ideological point of veganism is equalizing animals with humans in terms of rights and ethics. There is hardly any point in being vegan if not for ethical reasons. Veganism is sorely focused on the welfare of individuals as opposed to collectives, like for example an ecology, a forest or a city. Vegans do not prioritize the environment over individual animal welfare for example. For someone like P. Singer, the environment is something to be undermined for that exact reason, advocating for euthanizing predators via contraceptives. I never said that veganism is necessarily harmful to society. I'm merely pointing out that it is a flawed premise in execution when taking into account the reality we live in. People are simply not going to agree that animals are equivalent to human being across the board. This is obvious. This was about vegans. The problem with acts like releasing fur minks is that its hypocritical and makes vegans/animal rights activist look stupid and myopic, only being able to focus on the suffering of individual animals. And the fact that the animals vegans/animal rights activists care about are almost always cute makes them seem unprincipled and merely emotional. Releasing an invasive species into the wild isn't even being registered as a potential issues. The consequences don't matter. It all about destroying what you hate right now, which is why I call it childish. I once lived in close proximity of a dairy farm and one night a group of activists snuck in released all of the cows. Did the cows live happily ever after? No, they got run over by cars and got stuck in ditches. This is why people don't vegans/animal rights activists seriously.

Nothing of what I said precludes questioning the ethics of something or changing the status quo. What you are demonstrating here is that veganism can't even be question. That is not even post-modern, that's modern. Your trying to impose an absolute rule and the fact is most people judging by how they live and think don't agree with the premise that animals have the same status as a person. That doesn't mean that there is no value what so ever to be gained from dialogue, for example vegans have been a positive influence on animal welfare in factory in farming. However, it is like I said, the value of veganism is the critique not the means. Acting as if veganism is inherently correct comes of as short-sighted and myopic. It assumes people think the same which is my biggest critique. Animal exploitation is not equivalent to slavery. While you could have an argument in terms of welfare the fact is that animals aren't people. A human in slavery is not the same as a chicken coup. To compare the two as equal is ridiculous and childish. Veganism is extreme relative to what is normative. When I call veganism extreme is descriptive not pejorative. And its perfectly fair to call veganism extreme considering the lengths you have to alter your lifestyle to be vegan not to mention the often cult-like and misanthropic community that subscribes to the ideology.

But ethics is a matter of perspective. Ascribing altruism to animals isn't something everybody is going to agree on to the same extent that vegans tend to do. That doesn't mean your necessarily less developed or that you don't value animal welfare. The problem with veganism, or at least the more extreme version of P. Singer, is that it prioritizes individuals over systems. If you start giving every animal rights you start undermining human society as well as natural ecosystems. That is when you get people who release fur minks into the wild, which then devastate the ecosystem driving native bird species to extinction. Veganism is like communism in that its more about the critique than the means in my opinion. Just like how its not truly possible for there to be a true communist state outside of perhaps a hunter-gatherer tribe its not possible for everyone to be vegan.

You don't need a free market of guns to achieve that. Just acquire one illegally. In practice, a bomb is probably more effective than small arms, like that scooter trap that killed that Russian general recently. When Luigi Mangione used a handgun to kill that CEO it was no doubt in part a statement. In fact, I'd argue most premeditated acts of gun violence are in parts statements rather than just pure acts of elimination. Like a school shooting or the terrorist attack on Utøya in Norway by Anders Breivik.

In N. Europe access to guns is highly regulated and mostly just for hunting. I do envy America a little for all the fun toys you can get access to and I think there is some merit to guns as a self-defense measure in a trained and regulated fashion but on the other hand we have next to no serious gun violence. All we get are these Elmer Fudd guns with a max capacity of two. Doesn't inspire much in the way of fervor. In Norway you can't even use an airgun to shoot rats (legally).

But Leo, in your "when does the left go too far?" series you said "it could be done" relative to a citizen population resisting its government, citing Afghanistan as an example. Have you changed your mind on that premise?

It makes them look like a cult and not a serious diet. And its the only diet that is like this. You don't see paleo folk giving a shit what you eat. And it just stupid. At a certain point, these Stage Green oafs need to accept that people are just going to think differently on certain issues. Unless of course its kind of a cult thing its more about signaling to other members. I won't say veganism as a whole is stupid, it has highlighted the importance of animal welfare in their exploitation, but the end goal of completely ending all animal exploitation is extreme and impossible. If it where up to someone like Peter Singer, nature would be turned into a daycare center and predators would be euthanized via contraceptives.

No its because they are Stage Blue countries. There is no objective measure with which they choose what religious they brainwash themselves with. They happen to be Muslim so that's what they are. Separating church and state is a relatively recent development. The difference between historically Muslim and Christian countries is that Christian countries are much more developed, thanks in part due to a more hospitable geography.

How so? That's crazy considering the size of Google.

@NewKidOnTheBlock Addictive design is primarily a feature of social media. Unless you think social media fundamentally define our current age then it wouldn't really be accurate to say that addiction defines this period we live in. While the economy, especially the job market, could be better your taking for granted just how well you have it today. People in the past have lived through extreme poverty (couldn't afford a loaf of bread) and war less than a 100 years ago. Even during an economic recession you are living more comfortably than a medieval king.

I'd still rather be born a beautiful women than and an ugly minger though.

I understand your concerns but you're fear mongering and you need to relax. These are projections, not claims of particular substance unless you can provide evidence. I think you should focus more on what you can actually act on. Like voting proper or sharing your political views in a diplomatic way with others. You could write to congress with your concerns if your really serious about it. But ultimately, its not really something you can control if the political debauchery takes place. So let it go a little. You can't live your life being bummed out constantly that Trump won.

@Hardkill Its over man. Just let it go. Save your strength for the next election.

Voting against someone because you feel talked down to is essentially voting against someone just because they are annoying. Yes, its terrible messaging. You can't expect everyone to be on the same page as you on every topic then act superior when they inevitably fail to meet those expectations but it does illustrate how unserious voting practice is in America. About 36% of Americans, about one third, didn't bother voting. They don't truly care about politics.

He acknowledged pain and promised he would fix things in generally vague terms while making his opposition look stupid and weak. He's a populist and appeals to American machismo. A lot of people aren't politically literate, don't care about policy and are too immersed in culture war to appreciate actual politics. Its a team sport exercise about being right (literally this time). Trump waving his fist into the air and yelling "fight" after getting shot is enough to motivate some people to vote for him. Its that unserious.

Because all she had was "not Trump" which isn't motivating to most people. She came of as more of the same in a climate where people where distrusting of the government, in part due to independent media. A lot of the people that voted Bernie voted Trump this time because Trump did a good job appealing to people's survival frustrations (inflation, job market, etc.) I'm not sure she needed to have a "bold vision" perce but the messaging needed to be stronger in a general sense. I'm not even sure what she stood for exactly campaign wise.

A lot of "woke stuff" in my opinion are low stakes stuff which aren't important in the grand scheme of things which is why large companies like to peddle those. It makes them look socially conscious while not dipping into policies that would negatively effect them, like fair wage laws for example. Disney is pro trans but you never hear them talking about building better unions or combating tax evasion. There's also the aspect of dumbing down complex issues into memes essentially which is not unique to progressives, like "men bad". "Woke bad" on the other hand is a meme of the right. Being pro-trans is much simpler than being pro some kind of economic policy that would lift the quality of life of common people. There are of course woke people in real life but if you ask any random person on the street chances are they are not woke.

Unironically a good guide for surviving a SD Stage Red environment. If someone is being aggressive with you, something has already gone wrong for you to get in that situation. Since I was teen i subconsciously taught myself to navigate my environment to avoid potential danger despite living in a safe environment. Which I feel has helped kept me safe when I did happen to be in less safe feeling spaces. Its a lot about awareness and not drawing attention to you by looking at people and walking like you are meant to be somewhere.

Extreme woke brainrot is mostly centered in echochambers on the net (Reddit, Twitter, etc.). Those beliefs don't tend to survive contact with oxygen. Progressive politicians are in practice not "that" woke comparatively, focusing primarily on real economic issues, like previous comments pointed out. Green parties however tend to be impractical and overly idealistic in my opinion. Incapable of compromising with conservatives in order to influence politics. More about the image of progressiveness than the actual nitty gritty of politics. Like banning diesel cars in city centers so everyone has to drive electric when the technology isn't ready yet for mass adoption. They had to temporarily freeze fining people for driving diesel in Amsterdam because its simply not possible for everyone to drive electric. But that's not really something you see in America cause you don't have a multiple party system.

I've had somewhat similar experiences but primarily with guys I want to be friends with, but also with girls a bit. It think its just validation seeking. Especially considering that you aren't genuinely interested in a relationship as soon you get attention.

I don't know who's more annoying, crypto bros or Linux bros. You could be lowered into your grave and some fat Indian will yell at you to install Linux.

If I understand correctly, the long-term goal of Zionism is creating a home land of Jews and to that extend they have methodically ethnically cleansed Palestinians to this day. Israel right now is already doing fine. Its a top ranking country in terms of GDP. Why does it want to take more land? Is it simply a matter of excess?

What's it like having kids for those who have them?

One of the most violent years since the Cold War.