Basman

Do you think in a similar fashion that nations in for example Europe will eventually merge as one super country in some kind of way? War is pretty much unthinkable between Western-European countries.

Depends on how you define masculine and feminine. The problem is that those words are inherently vague and mean different things to different people. Masculine and feminine are essentially just rhetorical. If you want to point out the differences between men and women as not being a social construct then you simply need to point out biology and how societies have been shaped historically that are a-socially constructed. Men are bigger and stronger, women get pregnant, men and women have different brains, all surviving societies regardless of their cultural similarity or difference have universally been patriarchal, most men and women want to be "men and women" regardless of their culture, etc.

Hormones and physicality do make a huge difference though. Your physicality shapes how you perceive the world. If humans where rat sized our experience of life and how we think would be much different. The difference between men and women comes down to a couple of essential things, men being bigger and stronger and human reproduction being intensive, risky and long compared to other animals and disproportionately carried by women. This makes women largely dependent on men for their survival. The terrifying reality of being a women is being dependent of men who might see you beneath them because your physically weaker, hence why women have been second-class citizen for most of human history. A lot of this dating debate between men and women is that men and women have asymmetrical needs and not understanding each other (and speaking over each other most of the time). A mans needs are different to a woman's needs because women get pregnant and men don't. That is not a social construct. Personally I don't think men will ever fully grasp what it is like to be a woman and vice-versa without first hand experience on a bodily level. Likewise, you are never going to fully grasp what it is like to be a rat. This leftist rhetoric of reducing everything that undermines equity as a social construct and socialization is getting tiresome. You are simply in denial of the natural condition of man. It can be ugly and unideal but it is what it is.

OHH SHID

Because it is about conflict and Stage Green people hate conflict. I see them constantly arguing and debating Hobbes's philosophy because they see it as psychotic and dehumanizing. What they miss is that Hobbes is reacting against the existential problem of violence in my opinion, what he calls the natural condition. The natural condition is problematic because it undermines society, the ability for millions of strangers with no direct trust to cooperate (otherwise you could only trust your closest friends and family, like how animals do). The only solution to violence existentially is to monopolize violence so you can regulate it. Then we can have nice things like an economy instead of having to bludgeon each other to get what we want. Its basic shit and I think a lot of people who react against Hobbes miss that. A common criticism is that Hobbes doesn't differentiate between the quality of a sovereign power (the US VS China for example) but that is in my opinion begging the question. Hobbes is more fundamental than that. He is merely arguing that there is no viable alternative for humanity than to have a sovereign power that monopolizes violence. We can always argue what kind of sovereign power we want but that is a question that build on first solving the problem of the natural condition first. Civilization started with conquering your neighboring tribes through brutal violence, growing bigger and bigger as a group with no consideration for fairness. Notice that social justice assumes that there already is a society to react against. Green people don't appreciate what the natural condition truly entails since Stage Green tends to flourish in a society that is already long been successful and is free from abject poverty, rampant crime and political instability. Hobbes philosophy is purely about survival and they are too spoiled and idealistic to appreciate that. Hobbes is a product of his time as he wrote Leviathan during a civil war, which is a historical context that you have to consider. Hobbes is essentially reacting against stage red/purple and making a case to contain it. Nothing more, nothing less. Fun fact: apparently about 1/4th of all people who died during the Stone Ages died due to homicide. They where killed by another human being. Of course, because hunter-gatherers don't have direct control over their resources while those resources that do exist are scarce. Humans are therefor incentivized to kill and steal from each other under such conditions. It makes logical sense from a survival perspective. That is the natural condition. You can observe the natural condition in motion by studying geopolitics as nation states are not subject to a sovereign power. Every time a country gets invaded, like Russia or Israel invading its neighbors, that only happens because relatively speaking those countries lack the material power to deter violence from a foreign adversary. They haven't successfully monopolized violence within their territory and are therefor subject to the violence of others. In contrast, nobody is going to invade the US. Its monopoly of violence over its territory is absolute as the biggest military in the world. Its not even a question. They are so powerful that they can deter China from invading Taiwan, a tiny island right of the Chinese coast millions of miles away from the US.

Its crazy how European countries are now besties after having been at war with each other for hundreds of years.

Magical thinking about causality being directly shaped by your thoughts in my opinion. Ascribing significance where there is none.

More Norman Finkelstein:

There are plenty of ethnic Japanese across the world to draw from, like in Brazil. Though I suspect that Japanese culture is so homogeneous that even they would be seen as foreign to a certain degree.

They should start doing this in Japan anywhere else with a population decline. Encourage young people to fuck I mean.

Geography is a major factor too. All of the most successful regions, Western-Europe and the US have superb geography, rich in resources, witch access to the ocean whereas the most backwards and war-torn countries are arid deserts where the quantity of land is the only measure of quality, thus territory conflict.

Make it members only or something like that.

The simplest and most effective way is to replace your smart phone with a dumb phone and use a blocker program like Cold Turkey to set hard limits for when and how much you can visit select sites, or at all. Social media is designed to be distracting and addicting. Will power alone is not sufficient in my opinion if you are serious about cutting down on it. I had a period with no internet recently and its not that bad. You'll be more bored more often though. Having internet again after that period made me realize how drama filled and negative social media often is. And not in a fluffy way but I could tell that I more often feel angry, wrathful and plain negative when consuming digital content. And its by design because social media is made to be emotionally engaging which naturally emphasizes negativity since negativity is "sticky" in the mind. Like you'll be watching a video about the "downfall of (insert scumbag streamer here)" and of course being exposed to a variety of scumbaggery is upsetting but maybe you just don't notice as much without the contrast of not being exposed to that kind of stuff for a while due to lack of internet. Having that break made me consume less, especially drama type content. Also a lot less Reddit because it is so condescending and self-biased. Engaging with that community is the definition of throwing pearls to swine. Also dopamine addiction isn't real. Just listen to music if you want to. Its simply a matter of how distracting something is and how much time your wasting on it. You are not getting the time back you are spending right now.

The data is pretty conclusive about it. Its linked with testosterone.

Men have on average a higher sex drive.

Do you have any resources on inner child dialoging?

Don't pop a vessel now.

Yeah, and its always really liberal middle-aged women with a bunch of failed relationships that have a lot to say about it. No resentment there I'm sure. Kind of a straw-man buts its funny.

What is the truth then? I honestly don't think its that deep.

If men have an understanding of women that works in real life than that understanding must be true, otherwise it wouldn't work. Like if your understanding of carpentry does not result in a house than you don't understand carpentry. Its senseless to argue with a carpenter on a fundamental level about houses when he has built hundreds of houses already. I suspect that there is degree where attraction feels different to women than to men but feelings don't necessarily equate to reality. Something can feel one way but in reality be a completely different way. A man can feel "just right" to a woman but that doesn't mean that there isn't cold survival incentives driving their feelings. Its not a coincidence either that women that feel attractive to men are usually fertile and young. I don't think men need to understand the entirety of womanhood anyway, like no red blooded male needs to understand how women menstruate. Most women don't really care what it is like to be man either and that is fair. What about these kind of discussions makes you so mad anyway? I always see you writing walls of text whenever there is talk about how women work. Do you think your above being an animal?

Treat everything less like a grind and more like a hobby. What excites you? What do you value intrinsically? What will give you peace? There is no law in the universe that states that you have to treat your body like a temple.

You can't be tricked into being attracted to someone though. If you are made to be attracted to a man due to his deliberate attempt at seducing you then that attraction must be genuine. I think what he is insinuating is that there is an asymmetry between men and women when it comes to dating and that successful men apply their knowledge and experience deliberately.

He's quit successful with women though with a pedigree for making truthful and holistic statements. Why would he talk out of his ass considering?

Your dissemination is clearly unpopular with the girls here. Why is it painful for women to learn this stuff exactly? Is it because your undermining romance as a concept?

SD Stage Blue is such a self-biased stage while being completely oblivious how self-biased they are. Like, how convenient that god bestowed you all this land that happens to run along all of this profitable coast line.