Basman

Your not far-right, giraffe. Your just pissed at the regressive side of really woke people and feminist cu***. Certain industries and institutions attract those kind of people. It is a mix of genuine ideology and concern trolling to get leverage over people. I've experienced 1st hand concern trolling to get petty revenge via HR with bogus claims. You got to differentiate between being politically liberal and being personally liberal. In my opinion, you should really be right-wing on a personal level but liberal on a political level. That is the best of both worlds. You get the fortitude and groundedness for dealing with life on a personal level and you get the vision to build a better society for tomorrow. You should really not get this miffed about these whiny woke cu***, really. You should have goals to work towards if you are a proper conservative. The core of the beliefs of wokies are true and correct, or at least well intentioned.

Russia just needs to be stonewalled militarily. Very simple actually. NATO commitments needs to be ironclad and Europe needs to be able to wage war independent of the US. Russia poses a risk is to Europe's unity. In order to effectively maintain security Europe needs to likewise resist authoritarian sentiment at home and checks and balances of power being eroded. There is a growing fatigue with technocratic incompetence. We could have more severe setbacks on a societal scale like with Brexit in the UK which make it impossible to effectively resist Russian escalation in the future. It will be security and economic downturn for everyone involved. I don't know about China relative to Europe. Isn't that more America's problem? I can imagine that Europe is broadly interested in maintaining the status quo relative to regional stability in the Pacific but doesn't want China as an enemy necesarilly. China is a valuable business partner.

I think it is unproductive to dwell to much on the failures of one's parents. In a sense they did the best they could and focusing on their failures could just make you feel miserable. As long as you understand your own childhood and how it shaped you and your parents as people, perhaps. You can love your parents or don't. It's fine either way, really. If you can stomach them as people I would recommend love just because it feels good. Your parents can be some of your greatest allies. My own parents failed me by being neglectful, long and short of it. Just not available and generally uninvolved, busy in their own little world. They failed to protect me from sibling abuse and to give me the mentorship and emotional closeness I needed. They are good people nonetheless but they wouldn't have had kids if they understood their proclivities and tendencies better. A lot of people have drawn the short stick in life. Don't sugarcoat it. If anything it is a privilege to have children. Honor yourself.

The advice that you need to divvy up your emotional energy is excellent advice. Guys do tend to go from 0 to a 100 and it is scaring the hoes. It is how you get those cringey confessions that get left on read. I think it could potentially prevent a lot of guys from killing themselves if they where more calibrated with sharing their emotions.

It's crazy how banking isn't considered an essential service legally. Companies like Mastercard and Visa can shutter you completely if they think what you are selling is too spicy, even if its legal. It is undemocratic and should be illegal. Payment processing is completely essential to modern life. It needs to be considered and protected as a public good. Also, the irony of censoring rape and incest games for PR is that it has brought a lot of bad PR to these companies itself. Streisand effect.

Because humans are a social species that help their weak and vulnerable there is a lot less pressure on pregnancies being optimal. Human pregnancy is quiet flawed and human babies are relatively underdeveloped even though they are already pushing the limit for how large a head you can push a head through a pelvis. Ideally, babies would gestate for longer. But it is good enough for reproduction. Human pregnancies are almost parasitical in nature. Other mammals can pause or terminate their pregnancy and reabsorb the fetus. It's funny, because a lot of pro-lifers think abortion is unnatural when the case it that it is mostly just difficult for humans specifically. Other animals abort/reject/eat their young all the time if conditions are unfavorable. Human pregnancy is quiet pernicious biologically, so it makes sense that women tend to be indirect and obtuse about their likes because an unfavorable pregnancy is such a huge disadvantage. There is little you can do about it besides medical intervention once you are pregnant and you are highly dependent on others for survival. It makes sense that women are obsessed with status because it is the greatest sign of social resources.

I would argue that should be the default. It is a democratic failure if people feel like their state isn't working for them. Really, you should stay within the circle of concern of the wider population broadly speaking, which is more national than global.

Oh no, not nationalism 😵.

I think human dimorphism boils down to the huge cost of human reproduction selecting for a division between reproductive and survival responsibilities. In other species, the role of the male is often more or less to just be the strongest genes available through fierce competition and territorial control, like tigers, lions, bears, gorillas, etc. Humans are intrinsically a social species. Such division between reproductive and survival responsibilities has worked for millions of years and is expressed in our genes. Women are generally much more dependent on social resources due to the vulnerability inherent to reproduction and size difference. Abstract thinking is generally a matter of finding solutions to material survival and doesn't mesh well with socializing, so you see less women gravitate towards it. Human dimorphism is quiet obvious to see, but there seems to be this belief circulating that tries to erase gender differences. Like it is all just cultural. I think it as a reaction against historical patriarchy or something. Not sure. At least against the vulnerability inherent to womanhood, I believe, but at that point your engaging in magical thinking. Like, it is obvious that men are bigger. It's a fact.

Well, maybe not that granular kind of politics. I could probably have phrased myself better. Trump himself used some broad economic talking points during the race, like wanting to protect working class people economically. There is a precedence for it.

Move to a bigger city to game. Focus on developing my life purpose and finance all sorts of artistic pursuits. Probably pay off my parents retirement. I'd also likely drop out of higher education for good. That shit bores me to tears.

I applaud you for making a decision for yourself. Even if it doesn't work out like you hoped, you'll have a lot of stories to tell and you'll have lived a little. Best of luck. Also, that Mongolian chick sounded like wife material, no?

You didn't say anything 🙂.

You are actually in a very strong position to start learning the things you are curious about. You have no idea what you might discover. This is exciting. And it is not that big of a deal if you don't know something currently because you can learn. You just have to be curious. If you are not curious then what does it matter? Purpose is something you create. It isn't something that gets spoon-fed to you. Start by becoming clear on what your values are first and go from there.

I think it is interesting how "woke issues" also tend to be very safe relative to the establishment. Like, trans issues are inconsequential relative to the sociopolitical situation we are in now with the growing wealth inequality, loss of trust in institutions, or global warming.

@BryanbraxI'm not debating your AI, bro.

I don't understand why democrats are so incompetent when it comes to their messaging. A 16 year old could tell you that they just need to appeal with bread and butter economic issues. Obviously, niche social issues aren't that important to the broader contingent of society. Not so obvious I guess.

I've listened to Leo on the speakers once while he was explaining some metaphor that included a grandma getting raped to make some sort of radical point. I don't remember exact context but my dad got really offended. Another time, while listening to Actualized on speakers again in my room, leo was going on about how stupid average people where in his typical confrontational tone, and my mom barged in upset and started arguing. I had a period where I was suicidal and when I confessed this to my mom and stepdad they blamed "that weird bald guy" for it. Pretty funny in hindsight. I no longer listen to actualized on the speaker. And I'm a little older now. It's exclusively my thing. It's too radical and off-putting to random uninitiated.

You are more likely to succeed now than ever before in human history. If you live in a 1st world country, you have so many opportunities to develop yourself. And your more survival secure than ever before if anything as well. So much that you are probably spoiled. So just get to work.

Government institutions are themselves collective fictions, no less legitimacy. Collective fiction require ritual to work and people need to trust the institutions to be grounded in reality. Suspension of disbelief if you will. Something like an election is a ritual that makes an elected government legitimate even if you yourself don't agree with their politics. It is an amazing social technology. Fundamentally, a government is essentially just the monopolization of violence in an area, but it also needs to be legitimized for the population to accept a government. In monarchies and authoritarian states, the head of government is typically "chosen by god" or literally a "god". The point is that a government needs to feel real for people to give their authority to it. Having an effective institution however allows you to regulate all sorts of things that are unwanted (murder, theft, pollution, etc.) and create public goods through organized work (infrastructure, education, redistribution of wealth, etc.). If you really want to go to the edge of collective fictions, you could say that your life has no legitimacy and it is just a matter of force to enslave you. And there are no rules that exist that could regulate that. Now we are in stone ages, where institutions barely exist. The notion of anarchy assumes that collective fictions are a bug as opposed to a feature. They are completely wrong and that kind of thinking is probably the result of premature conclusions. Imagine teaching chimps to drive. Without the ability to order themselves in accordance with the collective fiction of traffic rules, it would be complete pandemonium. Wanting to remove institutions over political grievances is like stabbing your wheels with sticks because the road is full of potholes. Anarchy isn't a serious solution to erosion of trust in institutions. I think it is interesting that you focus so much on the legitimacy of governance instead of the reality of institutions themselves as a collective fiction. I think this is perhaps an expression of a loss of trust in institutions. A loss of trust in their ability for the government to be effective at creating a good society for everyone, which is likely due to economic exclusion and a loss of community, I would bet. This kind of loss of trust in institutions is increasing, where the common sentiment is that they don't make you feel like a legitimate citizens who's concerns are important. You don't feel like you are fully participating in society. This is a serious problem.

Just as long as AI isn't the only resource you use, it can be a good source of discussion. Chatgpt at least has a bias towards agreeableness and saying whatever floats your boat so to speak, even if it isn't factual. AI is hallucinatory overall, but it can be really good at wording things and presenting a point of view you haven't even considered. You still want to be reading books, long-form articles, etc. And making up your own mind. Having answers spoonfed won't make you wiser. You need to be curious and contemplate how reality works with the information you learned. Interconnect your understanding.

We're in a phase of drifting towards authoritarianism in my opinion, which specifically means the erosion of checks and balances of power. This is due to a loss of trust in institutions, which is due to what I believe to be exhaustion with Stage Orange broadly. Economic exclusion and soulless technocracy is driving a wedge between populations and the institutions which comprise the unity of the West generally speaking. Trump and Putin are both expressions of such authoritarianism, where the perception is that might makes right, over for example due processes, like an election. Trumps isolationism is having global ramification for the state of Western society because the US is so integral to previous status quo. As European and East-Asian countries relied heavily on the US, they have to become more independent to adapt. In 20-30 years, I bet you'll see a western block that has it more together and is less heavily reliant on the US if there is not too much authoritarian slip-up. Brexit for example was a disaster for the UK. It was a huge set back for them politically.

Illegal/unwanted immigrants aren't sovereign citizens though. It is a bad example. When a country moves against immigration it is always because there is an undercurrent sense of one's sovereignty being at stake. Democratic countries are unlikely to ever really go directly at war with each other because they are too intertwined for that to even be an option. They are all westernized and roughly the same level of development. Unless something radical happens.