Basman

https://www.thefp.com/p/im-28-and-im-scheduled-to-die Terminal illness is one thing but this just seems like state mandated giving up. She is physically healthy and young. Thoughts?

Humans and primates (chimps, gorillas, etc.) are closely related but ultimately different in my opinion. Humans are part of their own genus. It is just that our species of human is the only surviving species at the moment. Humans, or homo sapiens, are extremely competitive and our complex social system and ability to create shared fictional myths (a social matrix) gives us the advantage over other animals. Our ability to create culture allows for cooperation across millions of individuals via shared identity based on fictional qualities, like nationality and institutions. Most social animals can only cooperate with other animals they personally are familiar with, I.E. their tribe/family. This is what makes humans unique. People always say that chimps are our closest cousin which I find to be an erroneous statement. Yes, they are our closest living relative genetically but only because we killed every other species that would compete with us, including other species of human. Cave lions and wolves used to be everywhere but where eradicated wherever humans went, the former being driven to complete extinction, because the species are competitors with humans, specifically for territory and prey/livestock. Neanderthals are a great example of another species that was most likely in my opinion driven to extinction by humans because of the conflicting interest. Humans won due to superior numbers and strategy as a social species despite being individually weaker than a neanderthal human. Point is, humans are extremely competitive and tend to kill their competition historically speaking. The fact that of all the species considered "primates", humans are the only generalist species. Arguably, the reason chimps have continued to survive despite of humans is because of how unlike us they are, I.E. a lack of conflicting interests. Everything that is like us, like neanderthals, where killed because "there can only be one" in our savage brains (and we rule the world as a result). I'm not rejecting the notion that humans are not "lowly animals" by saying that we are not apes, just that we are not apes specifically.

The real worry for me is what Blackpill will cost you in the long-term?

These self-defeating ideologies are like mind-viruses. Someone at some point convinced themselves of their own inherent inadequacy and then started spreading that belief with susceptible people. "Misery loves company". Good example of how social media can be damaging to young people. Also of how certain beliefs don't serve you. It is useless to think of yourself as helpless when you are young and able despite your looks. You can very much change your belief around attraction if you want to. The problem is the emotional intensity attached to the generalization that is Blackpill. If you can deconstruct your blackpill ideology and starting building a case for its antithesis you will theoretically start believing the opposite.

I think quitting social media would be an improvement to most people's life. Imagine how much time you would save.

This reminds me of the continuous de-funding of welfare programs here in Denmark. I'm sure there are more examples of such in West-Europe.

The market is so big that even if Tik-tok was banned wholesale, Facebook or some other company would fill in that gaping void with their version of Tik-tok. But it would be easier just to buy it.

I think you are mistaking Dutch with Danes lol. The Dutch where never vikings. I think we have a perception problem relative to comparing mental issues in the past with the present because we are much better at reporting and recording things like a being mentally ill. Mental health issues are increasing but does that mean that more people are actually having problems or is the problem merely better reported?

Not saying that humans are not closely related to chimps and company, just that we are our own thing. People keep saying how much we are alike chimps when what helps chimps and company survive is how different they are from us.

Polyamory has pros and cons but it is no mystery why most don't practice it. Less STD proof than monogamy It is more work and complicated Smaller dating pool of poly people Jealousy It is taboo currently

I live in Denmark, so I get free education + a stipend, so financially it is not problematic. My life purpose revolves around creativity and art, but the existing courses that teach that are either extremely competitive to get in (like they only admit 20 applicants every other year!) or it costs money and I'll have to go into debt. I already tried the former once and I'm lacking the technical skill to get admitted in the short-term (deadline for application is tomorrow btw omegalul). Problem is that there exist no courses that I I'm passionate about. So I'm thinking of going to uni but studying as little as I can get away with and focus my time on growing my art skill and socializing/hooking up with girls. I'm currently considering applied philosophy. Thoughts?

Genuinely, if Neanderthals existed to this day they be treated horribly. We already consider them subhuman from what we know of them archeologically. Wolves used to be the most widely distributed land mammal until humans. Now only small pockets of wolf population exist in various places. I think domestication can only account for a fraction of the population size of the past.

Apes and humans definitely have a common ancestor, no doubt about it. And they are our closest living relatives. But my point is that they have survived till now because of how unlike us they are. They are all specialist species that live in environments that humans don't tend to live in. True, it is essentially just semantics whether or not humans are categorically apes but I do think that humans are such an outlier in the "primate" category that they are essentially a different family, just that there exists only a single species of human. Chimps have much more in common with gorillas, bonobos, etc. than they do with humans (or any other animal of the primate species). Neanderthal extinction was definitely a mixture of factors. Apparently East-Asians have the most neanderthal DNA, so there was some interbreeding at place. But I still think human competition is what killed neanderthals, climate might have just expedited that process. There would be conflict of interest over prey animals and territory. That doesn't necessarily mean there was a war between the species but maybe humans where just better hunters.

To be fair to the professionals in this case, the process for getting AS wasn't a willy-nilly one apparently, with a long bureaucratic chain with different people assessing the situation. Apparently it took years for her death to be scheduled from when she first applied. But I still think it is wrong for the therapist to deem all hope lost. In my opinion, a mental health professional should never decide that a patient can no longer improve or that they should apply for AS. The problem is that therapists have limited tools and our understanding of mental health is still developing. But if a patient wants to apply for AS they can in my opinion. Most applications for AS get rejected anyway apparently. It takes a special something to get your application granted.

That people kill themselves can't be helped but I don't think it should be a mental health professionals place to make the call that there is no hope to a mentally ill person.

People who are meant to help you tell you to kill yourself essentially

How is it equal to essentially reverse the stereotypical roles? Wouldn't it be more equal to teach both children both the girly and laddy things? What if the boys enjoy the laddy lessons more and the reverse for the girls? Imagine if they did that and the boys just fully embrace those laddy lessons and the reverse for girls. It'll be like those videos where the vegan pet instantly picks the steak over a bowl of salad.

RIP I guess. Stuck in the in-between the age of questioning gender constructs and the older population not really giving a shit. Just bad RNG. I know certain people will get upset at the notion of calling being trans a mental illness because it'll come of as dismissing their identity but I do think your life is automatically harder from the get-go. How is that unlike a mental illness? You suffer just from having the body you born with, disease not withstanding.

Debate-brainrot is just an unfortunate side effect of general anonymity. If these people who are arguing fiercely about Israel or enlightenment where to argue face to face, they would suddenly be a lot more cordial than they are online. Just how it is.

I wonder how much this is an issue with unrestricted access to the internet. The problem I'd worry about as a parent is that exposure to that kind of information would over complicate kids identity when genuine gender dysphoria is quite rare, especially if kids start perceiving being trans as granting social privilege. I'm generally for complete restriction of social media for young kids. If a child of mine is genuinely dysphoric, we'll work it out. They shouldn't have to watch Tik-tok to know if they are not okay in some way.

A religious troll? That is a first.

My impression is that reforms that benefit the the general populace tend to not be beneficial for just making money and make it much harder to generate massive wealth. Values matter here a lot. There is an argument to be made that top wealth needs to be taxed more because it is wider society that enables the generation of that wealth in the first place and by simply hoarding massive amounts of wealth, which is what tends to happen, it is more like a parasitical relationship (assuming you value wider society which companies arguably don't, they exist to make profit). With growing wealth inequality, there is a reason why "tax the rich" is a popular sentiment. It makes sense on an intuitive albeit shallow sense.

Oh, I assumed you meant the just finding the opportunity to migrate instead of integrate specifically. Here's my perspective, do as the Romans. Don't expect strangers of a land you are settling in to to accept you wholesale with no effort on your part. That is not how humans work. Humans are bred to like people who are like them. So you have to integrate if you want the best experience, which means to act like them. Westerners are probably the most tolerant people when it comes to this on the planet (mileage may vary per country). Because there are cultures that are not accepting of foreigners regardless of how well you learn their customs and language. Like Japan. In Japan, once a foreigner always a foreigner. You will never be seen as Japanese unless you look Japanese at the bare minimum. Western countries in contrast will accept you generally if you integrate and especially in big cities.

It seems like we're in a phase of less acceptance of migrants compared to before at the moment in general. It seems somewhat cyclical to me. But this applies more to populations than individuals in my opinion. If you have a valuable skill then they will be more likely accepting of you compared to not. You could leverage your connections to find work abroad and let the company you work for help lace you up. Migration is easier when you have someone who is a citizen helping you in my experience.

I don't think the label of "left" or "right" is inherently problematic. It is more the way people use them to pigeonhole others in a binary way. The problem is that most people have a very shallow understanding of politics and just parrot concepts that their in-group espouses. Essentially, there is a lack of serious impartial discussion with the intent of understanding as opposed to debate brainrot. That requires a level of intellectual integrity that many people are not even aware of (or care about) so we end up with a low quality discussion that misses the forest for the trees. Most are too biased in my opinion, at least what you see on the internet. I know people who would be genuinely upset if I told them that I hold "right-wing opinions" because of how charged that word is in their minds. "Tribalism" is counter-intuitive to a grounded and holistic understanding of politics.