bebotalk

Most people's engagement with politics is when they vote. Or they may see a political TV talk show or a popular streamer like Destiny, Hasan, or Vaush. Many don't have an in-depth knowledge of political science or theory. Most wouldn't know that not all fascism is Nazism, for instance. And that's perfectly fine. People are concerned with living their lives foremost. Politicians should sell visions, as the point of politics is creating and implementing a vision of how society should be run.

No, on average, they are not good people, so I avoid them. Society tends to state that pretty women should be looked up to. I refuse to. I don't wish to look up to any group more than others. The same said society says that everybody is equal also. If "society" has contradictory rules, so be it. As an individual, I do my own thing and have my values. It's frankly amusing when a pretty woman hasn't realised she isn't owed anything, and gets flustered when I don't give her the "respect" she thinks she's "owed" merely for the arrangement of her body and appearance.

it's hypocrisy. all bad views are of equal weight. humans express views all the time. it's our nature. though the moral condemnation of bad views is of equal weight. The point of this thread was clear and there was no real reason for it to go over your head. I never said I was afraid, just stating that the moral weight of prejudices cancels things out.

people have prejudices. it's false to say they don't, or lie or virtue-signal that others don't. I'm not responsible for others' maladies in perception.

My point is that many deny this truth. That's on them. it's best in life to be open and not hide behind shit to look good.

I'd further say that English perhaps isn't your first language. Your points seem very subjective (yes that word again...) and you're using standard terms in very idiosyncratic ways. What has civility got to do with a lack of awareness? Why should a person feel fearful in the middle of a city? And how does this denote a lack of awareness? There's a lot of bad correlations there, or at least points that don't logically follow from each other. There are several reasons why a person may be "civil" in public spaces. It could be they are working a busy job with responsibility and use lunchtimes in a city park to chill. They may be meeting friends and have no reason to feel tense. The park may be relatively safe. People may have a culture of respecting others' space and time in said environment. Civil means pleasant, polite, or congenial. So then people in public city centre parks should shout, cuss, rant, rave, or punch people? I agree with Blueoak. I don't see the inherent connections you're trying to make. So yes, it is very subjective. It's like a person saying that they felt sick as a kid eating chocolate, but grew out of it as an adult. I never did as a kid. It's not something I can relate to directly, or comprehend since it's not an inherently toxic food. However, I can accept that others experience things differently to me. I didn't use "substance" in my points as you cite since it was oddly stated in fairness. You seem to very being learned, but then your terms and communication is very poor. "overly civilised" people don't offend me. Little does in life, in reality. I value being civil and decent to others, and expect others of me. Society works better if people aren't hostile to others. It's expected socially, in mycoutry at least, that people in large urban areas are generally civil. This means not harming others or being generally negative. If anything, crime is less likely in large public city centre spaces since it's harder to get away with and the mass of people are going about their lives and excess drama or trouble isn't good for people overall.

Yes, and subjective perceptions don't translate to absolute realities. Your opinions or perceptions are unique to you, and don't and shouldn't translate to all others. How I perceive things is unique to me, and nobody else needs to care. Your points don't make sense, that's all. I don't see the relevance of statistics in this case, since you've used words that have no meaning and are just attempts to sound erudite without really saying much. What is civilised conduct? Why is it bad? I read your OP, and it seemed jumbled. I'm entitled to express if I don't comprehend something, or think something is badly-expressed. You've had several people express similar sentiments. And yes, I am reducing it, since the OP didn't make any sense and had badly stated points, terms, and rationale.

People who say it isn't are white, and thus less likely to experience racism. Or they're very stupid and blinded. There are many who say there is no segregation and there are efforts to stamp out systemic prejudice. So there is no racism. No it's not that simple.

I don't get the OP's points. It's based on very subjective perceptions.

Self-control. Self-awareness. Social awareness. Emotional, psychological and behavioural regulation. Integrity. Magnanimity Own up to faults and mistakes.

No, the stated point of crypto is a rival to fiat currencies. it hasn't become that. i love it when arrogant Hispanic dudes get the huff over petty nonsense. Stop boasting about being such a "master" socially when you're anything but! i know me calling you out vexes you to your core. Normal person - "meh, whatever! screw you!!" You and people like you "HOW DARE YOU!! I WILL F YOU UP!!!" I was never told I had to "always" look up to anybody; it's your brain/mind at play, not mine.

Isn't this entire thread about bitcoin? It's pretty clear that it hasn't achieved its purpose, as an alternative currency. I don't know why you're being deliberately obtuse.

Objective truth doesn't exist, or it's difficult to discern such. However, it can be strongly said that Western values lead to the greatest outcome for the widest amount of people.

So then it hasn't caught on in its original and true purpose, has it? Is that so bad to point out?

Unfunny comedian who conflates edginess and conspiracy theorising with humour.

I am demonising wokeism, which as I stated by my reckoning is a perversion of egalitarianism. its wrong to conflate the two. I don't get your point on censorship, since it's confused. Censorship still exists. Even today, people believe swearing isn't right in given contexts. I don't see the connection between censorship and wokeism. Who says I'm aligned with the right? I have even said my political views here. Linking things to rap or explicit lyrics statements is tangential. People across the political spectrum believe in censor explicit lyrics, and it has never been an exclusive right or left thing. Maybe state why wokeism isn't distcint from egalitarianism, which was my central point.

It's well stated that global povery levels have fallen over the past few decades. So this cannot be specific to India, as India isn't the world. I thought mandirs taught clear thinking?

You assume a lot. I'm only challenging you since you claim to have some "right" to dictate what people post here. You claim to be"wise" but you don't get rudimentary social contexts, and you show impulse maladadpativities and possibly some ADHD. It's why you let some Indian kid post trite nonsense, but then come down on me for the same. Since apparently humans don't have a mix of emotions and behaviours and we're always erudite, strong, and stoic all the time. You're just too egocentric and arrogant to not act on your impulses, and your "social prowess" isnt' that strong. We innately gauge the social vibe and act accordingly. It's why people don't tell a supermarket cashier that their boobs are looking hot. Moreover, you spiritualists have such narrow views. Why do you assume that this minor beef means anything to me in the grand scheme? People go through a lot worse, and not the human condition isn't to feel benighted all the time. Your guru was clearly very limited at it stands. I've told you continually why I barrack you. I don't and won't ever accept your "right" to "limit" who posts what, and only because of your own subjective thinking or perceptions, based on arrogance and bad impulse control. If you don't want "beef", then you can control yourself. but you won't, since your engagement with other humans is arrogant. It's highly amusing that you cannot handle people being negative to you. You like to assume that everybody has to be nice to you, no matter what. you must have learnt that when young, or it's your innately arrogant psychology. we're not owed anything, and you're that special. people can relate to you in any way they choose, and your inner brain of "specialdom" is comical and false. By your logic, you could probably kill your neighbours' kids, and you'd assume they should respect you. It's you who cannot read, comprehend stuff properly, and likes to regulate human freedom for petty/uber-subejctive reasons and lacks any real impulse control. As a human, I don't take kindly to others who limit my freedom for arbitrary reasons.

You make some good points. Overall, a spouse should match one's values, goals, aspirations and morals in life.

Yes, it may seem unkind. Humans are not universally kind. "good" people can do shitty things and "bad" people can do good things. humans aren't that simplistic. Choosing with whom to associate on any basis is a human right. Perhaps not in the international law sense, but definitely in a moral context. With 8 billion other humans, there are plenty of people with whom to associate with. People often choose not to associate with others based on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, etc. is it right? no. but it's common and inevitable.

Is it OK to exclude people and not be warm to them on the first or subsequent meetings? I can't really stand pretty women. I often just shy away from them when first meeting them. I don't see why this is wrong,m and many people have prejudices. nobody is really owed anything in life, and tbh i don't care who shys away from me on initial meetings. i don't really let it affect me, and that's their loss. i'm confident enough in myself that others' acts or views don't faze me that deeply. My views on conventionally hot women generally are proven right over time, anyhow. I just call it self-defence. i think as humans we shouldn't shy away from darker sides of our characters. though we shouldn't let the darkness win.

they are interchangeable. the problem is that they are toxic people. nobody should be looked up to. pretty women assume they should be looked up to based on their looks.

they are enjoyable and are controlled violence. They choose to have loved ones.

In the same said interview, Carlson himself said that he thought Putin's rationale for invading was slim. There is no evidence of Nazis in Ukraine, and there are as many if not more neo-Nazi groups in Russia.