bebotalk

Well even centre-right parties can be progressive. Not all people in a party are alike. Some GOP peole in the USA are pro-abortion for instance. Is there a point?

I've been taught that we're owed nothing and that nobody has to be nice, though people can be nice. We can't control others' reactions or behaviours. I myself am black, and most black people or others from marginalised groups would be on guard for any real bigotry. So it fits really, IMHO. It's foolish to expect people to always be welcoming in any space.

You make a lot of fair points. Though I can fully accept that others can and would judge me on appearance. I may not like it, but I accept it as a reality.

interesting. Herr Scholz is a lot more progressive than Merkel was.

The Nordic model doesn't work. Though I believe it should be legal.

there are different ways of being, Mr. spiritual. it's not something that fazes the masses, though it probably does based on what your guru tells you. The rationale behind smiling at people is recognising them. and yes, it is leaving alone, since it's inherently connected. if one notices another smiling, then it can be for a reason, and why shouldn't a person interpret that action? not all engagements have to be physical, as you suggest. You're making many illogical connections and assumptions. And yes, everybdy has freedom. but others will have the freedom to interpret your facial expressions in which way they choose. why is your freedom of greater value than others? As you're that wise, you don't think that people might think "what's he smiling at?" or "oh he's happy" if they notice one smiling? It seems you cannot handle a different perspective. many adults do, but then possibly spiritualists are the exception.

Well, I don't certainly love nor like you. I'm not bothered if you don't either, though you tend to expect others to welcome you no matter what, so it's something that can be exploited all the same. You genuinely believe human beings don't have a variety of emotions. This was a truth long before the advent of modern psychology. You think some edgelord opinion you made up is a fact for all. You reckon you can arbitrarily select who posts what and in what tone. Like you obviously favour the Indian kids posting the biggest BS out since they're of your culture and/or faith. and you assume everybody else goes along with your whims and subjective views also. it's also comically hypocritical when you speak about wisdom and being smart. it's a near sociopathic arrogance stated there. For a wise man, as you often claim, you have very weak impulse control, and thus cannot ignore things you dislike which even don't breach the stated forum rules but your own inner whims/values.

Yes, it is cringe imho. strangers are random people, who warrant a basic level of respect of course but they aren't friends. I expect, for one, to be left alone in public and don't need people I don't know to warm to me to make me feel happy. I'm also not spiritual, but if being such means ignoring rudimentary interpersonal skills and assuming there is one way to view life, then it's not for me. I don't see either perspective as better, though I don't concur with those saying one should smile at strangers. spiritualists do tend to hate other perspectives, and have sociopathic views/conduct.

i just think smiling at strangers is cringe. i don't see why people need to, though if others want to, so be it. we're all different. provided people aren't causing harm to others in public, then i don't see any requirement to smile at strangers. i personally don't need random people i don't know to smile at me, or make me feel warmer. that's my own responsibility. it's further cringe to suggest that others will judge people for not smiling. it's oddly invasive and intrusive and needless to boot. If you're going to the shops to buy groceries then just go and get your weekly shop. you shouldn't imho worry about people in your vicinity not smiling or not. your own life, family, spouse, kids, job, etc. are more important, or should be to you. we've all said our opinions. that's that then.

spiritualists are very presumptive. assuming i must care about their views or vids. and they take offence at such refusal, since they hate interpersonal freedom. or assume that they can influence others at all times. when they refuse to think "oh they're not interested, let me move on!" and will most likely act the same way to a hustler in the street without realising it's the same principle at hand. or they don't wish to realise it.

winner and loser are relative terms. and i mean that. people who are successful can and do have major flaws.

If he's a Christian, well that's on him. The Lord Himself said we're all sinners.

You're free to do as you please. I didn't say otherwise. But given how spiritualists interpret rudimentary English, they'd think that's what i WAS saying.

a guru-derived view isn't the only acceptable view. nor is mine.

This won't work as well for newer channels imho.

for a new channel, it takes time to build views, and it would get swamped out by others. More exposure on other platforms means more potential and actual views. It doesn't hurt to post a vid in a Facebook group or make a related X account to post vids on.

it's cringe to assume others care about one person's happiness, or that one "needs" to display it.

it's not me who is manipulating. I don't engage with others in that way.

Many despots rose to power on popular revolutions, or otherwise winning the masses over. I'd argue that appealing to the many is key in any political system. Mao made the Chinese population realise communism was the answer and the PRC has existed ever since. It's not something that's strictly related to democracy. China still is ruled by the Communist Party since its ensured that the Chinese people see it as the only true way for China. I don't know much about Indonesian politics, but it seems he is just using technology to appeal to voters.

The Madeleine McCann story still periodically makes the news. I have to question why. It is a tragedy that she went missing. However, people go missing literally everyday. Some are found and others are not. I get the suspicion that her story is continually peddled since she's white. The media favour her tragedy over millions of others due to her race. I'd question why this should be so, considering all missing people should be a tragedy. the race or gender (I assume if she were male, it wouldn't be as highlighted) of the said person should never give them more weight or sympathy.

Most of these happiness indices list the Scandinavian countries at the top. Granted, they are often made in good faith. But happiness is very relative. Whilst Denmark, Sweden and Norway are very wealthy and they take care of their citizens well, I don't think I'd be happy there. They're very nanny-state-ish. They pamper their citizens too much. And whilst governments are there to protect the people, they should be able to live their own lives properly. they also are quite homogenous and don't like integration that much. Or really don't pay credence to integration in some instances. This is why they have issues with immigrant rapes and stuff - they are often very PC and woke and won't do what it takes to make immigrants integrate. They don't realise there is a balance to be struck and migrants and states must work together to find that balance. Moreover, they are cold and winter in these places is harsh. If accounting for European countries, I'd prefer to live in the UK, Netherlands or Germany. Neither are as wealthy in terms of median incomes as Scandinavia, but they are less nanny-state-ish, and also have a healthier balance of integration. They also have more career and life opportunities, and overall are more varied places.

Humans are spiritual. that's been observed for literally forever.

I'm amused and not frustrated. you genuinely believe everybody is or should be morose and humourless. Or be perfectly erudite in speech or thought. I believe that's an unhealthy and unreasonable standard for all to adhere to. I don't see why a mix of emotions is bad. You probably concocted this worldview in a formative part of life but then despite being smart haven't even ever questioned it. And you think this abnormal standard is what everybody should adhere to, since having a balance of emotions in given circumstances which has long been proven to be psychologically healthy is bad based on your inner edgelord psychology. It's why you let some Indian kid chat the biggest BS out, since he's a fellow from your kind. so it's all some grand bias looool.

lol. more manipulation. Who mentioned growth? Or that I should grow? I think you're influenced by an Indian temple or something. this indirect and sublimiinal communication style as actually quite intriguing. I dont' think any person has to adhere to your points. The obligation to do such is baseless. It's you who is using imprecise English in bad contexts. hence it lends to some pathetic game.

Yes, it can and often does. Failures can show where one went wrong.