Basman

Welfare solutions to a certain extend subsidize for an individualized society. Tight knit communities combine resources effectively which can supplant the need for government allocated resources up to a certain degree. It's through tight knit communities that humans survive in the absence of a government authority. Our thinking relative to collective survival is highly individualized, though there exists alternatives. Individualism doesn't seem perfectly suistanable to me.

It's more aboug leverage than guarantee in my opinion. Social services like subsidiced health care, education, etc. gives people more autonomy. Some kind of UBI can also contribute to this, but it doesn't need to guarantee a comfortable life. If you can afford to live inside of a closet on just UBI, then that's sufficient in my opinion.

They don't report when people jump infront of trains because it could inspire copycats. It's all not really newsworthy most of the time. Male virgin loser kills himself. Ok and? Not unusual.

A part of why criminal sex is conducted among elite circles is so it can be secretly recorded and be used as blackmail. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a video in some harddrive somewhere of Trump having sex with a minor at a sex party. Maybe why Trump is so beholdent to Israel, among other reasons. Epstein could've used his sex trafficking ring to gain blackmail material on all kinds of people for Mossad. It was an asset. I believe P. Diddy had a huge amount of secret cameras in his mansion for similair reasons. It's also because you can. You can get used to indulging certain kinds of fetishes even though you know it's hurting people, but you still do it because it makes you 10x harder and it's all you can fantasize about. Epstein is smart enough to know what he is doing is hurting people. He might even once have been both disturbed and aroused by it at the same time but eventually got used to it, and was (for the most part) too powerful to not get away with it. When your free from consequences, your free to not care. This is true for everyone, like common folk throwing trash into bushes.

It's probably easier to become wealthy if you don't value truth to a maximalist degree. You need truth to create a lot of value and know how to manipulate systems, but being open to creating falsehoods gives you more options.

Great thread idea. A Boy And His Dog An old ass post-apocalyptic movie about a lone survivor and his dog who he can communicate telephatically with. The main character goes on a quest to get laid, as women are really rare in this world. Pretty weird with some funny surprises.

I'm a theoretical dating expert.

Conflict is a consequence of finitude and human beings are finite creatures, thus conflict. Conflict will continue as long as survival is a factor. As we evolve, we find more effective ways of survival that are less and less violent. Business for example is just a civilized and formal version of pillaging.

Even dictators needs to legitimize their power or there will be anarchy. Kings are divine represntatives of god, etc. Democracies legitimize power through votes. Democracies are also characterized by checks and balances of power, most promptly term limits. Trump is an authoritarian but he can't do whatever he wants currently. I see comments like these as a symptom of technocratic alienation. Common people can't make sense of it, and seemingly the government doesn't take people's genuine concerns seriously. For example, the threat of Russias hybrid warfare in Europe is making the government look ineffective, the long-term goal of which is to make future governments more ideologically aligned with Russia through a populace that increasingly prefer a more authoritarian style of government for said reasons. Immigration is another case of alienation. People feel insecure when they feel that their borders are too soft. The issue that progressive tend to have is that they treat political and moral issues as if they are not issues but a given. It's inherently culturally elitist, which also upset people.

I'd be more worried about social repurcussions than anything. In of itself I don't thinks its a big deal. But I'm extraordinarilly open minded compared to most. I've met a guy who was so hairy and muscular that you wouldn't think he was 23. But his energy tells me that he genuinely still get excited over something like Fortnite. As you got older, your tastes refine and your driven by more complex motivations. You settle more into the mundanity of reality. You also look up less to people. Like, if I yelled at this guy he would probably be genuinely hurt despite being bigger than me, whereas someone like you would probably just be confused. You wouldn't internalize how other people treat you.

Progressive politics are complicated and require education to understand, let alone appreciate. They look cuckish and foolish to conservative minds, like giving free housing to asylum seekers. The often felt but rarely fully understood grievances like economic exclusion or untethering from communal bonds are complicated and not at all obvious and part of certain greater trends that have been going on for decades now.

You're very particular. Physically your going to be attracted to any kind of fertillity. You don't jerk off to people's minds. It's also cultural to consider 18 as a kind of child in the broad sense. In the the past you'de be considered an adult much sooner. As survival requires more and more specialization, our perception of what is considered adult has become older I believe. In the past you could substantially and meaningfully contribute to survival at a younger age and where then considered adult, like in a hunter-gatherer society or a medieval farm.

I believe Trump had to kick him out of his parties because he was hitting on the daughter of one of Trump's rich friends, making him look bad.

I've heard that as a European, you could temporally move to the US for work and make a lot more more money than you would locally, pay less taxes, etc. What are some recommended places for experiencing America, ignoring job opportunities for a bit?

Uncompromising vision, for sure. That kind of persistence is rare.

Epstein is the CEO of networking. He has a little black book full of contact details of all kinds of people. He was very good at connecting with people, which was probably his bread and butter. He would feign expertise by knowing a lot of general stuff, then switch topics before people realized that he isn't that knowledgable. From what I've seen he likely worked for Mossad as an intelligence asset.

*weight when you see how much storage space this fucker is going to pilfer. Its going to make your eyes water. I'm calling it now, people are going to complain about the file size, with a subsequent backlash of people going "shut up, it's GTA!"

Rockstar has trended more and more towards realism, but GTA untill now has always been hyper real, a kind of parody of reality. There's an inherent humor to the freedom of being able to kill people and road rage in a life-like simulation of LA, where not being an awful person is the exception. There's a thread somewhere where they discussed which GTA V character they hated the most and nearly every character was mentioned at least once. That's hilarious. My biggest worry for GTA is thaf it is going to be too realistic and become tedious to play, like RDR2 was. I couldn't stand that boring ass game.

It wasn't bad but I was a little dissapointed. Too goofy and cliche in its writing. Kung fu bottom half as well as other moments ruined my sense of disbelief. The big monster looked like an edgier version of something out of How To Tame Your Dragon. Predator always seemed liked a kind of cold sociopathic monster to me. Like an aztec warrior with sci-fi gadgets collecting scalps. I didn't feel that a found family plot suited this movie. Also, his feet are really big. I couldn't unsee it once I noticed it. Almost like they are shoes or something.

Ankara Messi mosquito.

It's not that the conclusions themselves are shallow, but its not an an academic text with academic level of detail. That makes it more readable, and it wouldn't really be possible to write something like this academically because it is too broad and general. The conclusions makes sense in my opinion, which is what matters most.

Page count: 464 (about 400 excluding notes, etc.) A biological/evolutionary perspective on what humans are as a species. The book makes a relatively brief overview of humans history, covering pre-history, the agricultural revolution, religion and the science, while drawing several general conclusions about human nature based on these four major human revolutions in history, as per outlined in the book. The core concept of shared fictions/imagination and the power of imagination are enlightening and give context to human behavior and the main takeaway from this book if nothing else. It makes several conclusions for how humans, and by extensions society, function at its core, such as the notion that humans are a species that function of shared fictions (intangible constructs that are only real because the populace treats it like real, for example money, the state, religion, etc.), which is one of the major core concepts of the book and if nothing else the main take away in my opinion. It contextualizes human conduct in a materialistic way that that you can appreciate in your own daily life, down to the micro, all the way to the macro. It is however anthropologically shallow, opting rather for a broad overview. You have to be careful with how you apply the ideas of this book to the real world. The concepts of this book can be overly simplistic when you take into account why for example patriarchy has been the norm for human civilizations or why exactly only homo sapiens are the only surviving species of human. More academic texts can give you a more nuanced and rigorous take on specific questions relating to human history and nature, but it is in the broadness where this book shines. It is a challenge to present the entirety of human history within 400 pages. This book is pop-history/science/anthropology, if nothing else by virtue that no academic would make a book like this in the first place. It is something which a lot of people like to criticize it for. Sapiens seems to be popular to hate for supposed many inaccuracies, though I still find this book to be broadly insightful, even if the finer details might be glossed over to a certain extent or it makes specific errors. It contextualizes human activity in real time, which is rare and valuable. I think people are to a certain degree being contrarian, as Harari was heavily praised during his 15 minutes of fame. I find the criticism of Sapiens overblown ultimately. It is not meant to be academic. There are "so many errors", but they never make any specific examples, at least which substantially undermine the conclusions. For example, the conclusion that currency is a solution to the exchange of value which enables commerce isn't undermined if he was wrong about how the Aztecs counted goods using rope. Or if he was wrong about the exact nature of Mesopotamian written language. Nevertheless, this book has been fundamental in my understanding of how humans work and what exactly they are. It is something we tend to take wholly for granted. We tend to not see ourselves as a particular species for one who are the way they are for relative and particular reasons. 8/10

Doomer = modern isolation + victim mentality + negativity bias The isolation of modernity is probably the most pertinent aspect of doomerism. A perpetual lack of community makes life seem less meaningful. Algorithm capture then turns it into a identity and a signal. It's a trick question. Happiness is a choice. Doomers choose to focus on doom and gloom. It's not a given that being dealt a bad hand in life means your going to be unhappy. Doomers are mostly young men who live in a first world country and who live largely cushy lives. It's a kind of bored and frustrated mental masturbation, intensely focusing on things one can't control.

The guy most successful with women I know is a spoiled drug addicted millionaire who regularly gets panic attacks who runs a large club.

Maybe the law is too stringent in its definition or its just being misinterpreted relative to sleep sex. You still have to prove it was rape. Previously you had to prove violence/threat/coercion. Now you only have to prove consent. It has lead to an increase in convictions, as well as a new clause for "negligent rape", if it was unintentional. This is good. It's a culture that takes rape more seriously. It makes it easier for women who freeze when raped as opposed to fight back to get justice, which is most of them. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/rape-conviction-rates-rise-75-in-sweden-after-change-in-the-law-idUSKBN23T2R2/