tsuki

Not anymore, apparently. Have you watched the video Leo posted? China is in an "agreement exceeding alliance" with Russia, which made Putin feel like he can't be pushed around anymore.

@Leo Gura And accelerated the today's crisis caused by Ukraine becoming heavily pro-west. It's like this invasion was Putin's goal all along to consolidate the alliance with China.

@Preety_India The actions Russia is taking are self defeating to a large degree. Like taking the Crimea, which was mostly populated by pro-russian citizens, thus tipping the scales against themselves in the remaining population.

I was thinking along the same lines. There się virtually no serious consideration of what the Russians are saying. Like they were just stupid. This is a huge red flag in communication. If this is an existential threat to Russia, imagine if they failed and we had a second Russia breakdown. That would be nasty. Imagine what would happen to their nuclear arsenal.

Masculinity is about purpose, finding how you can __express__ your unique gifts in this world for the benefit of everybody, yourself included. This pursuit requires you to look inwards, to discover yourself on deeper and deeper levels, as well as to learn the truth about the world and to find an environment where your uniqueness is needed. Truth is central to masculinity both in social and individual sphere because thruthful action is efficacy, and truthful judgement is justice. Both are needed for successful fulfillment of your potential into purpose. Being a man is to be a tool for the betterment of the world and to dedicate yourself to service. The societal promise is that you will be respected (listened with attention) and treated with gratefullness.

@LastThursday Yes, I noticed that too about female characters. I remember Megan Fox attracting a lot of criticism for embodying this archetype: an emotionally detached, sexualized prize for the hero. Margot Robbie's characters also revolve around this stereotype, but she is also a producer so she has some more creative freedom around them. It's been a while since I saw an interesting female character in a movie. Maybe I should broaden my consumption? Eternals had a shot at portraying diversity in a heroic movie, but I found it quite boring to be honest. In Once upon a time in Hollywood, there was a female character that lived a bohemian lifestyle that stuck with me. Into the wild also had some characters like that, but it was commenting on the tragedy of a hero in an inner journey. Anyways, what's up with the tragedy in heroic movies? Why can't men be happy and engaged in life, finding meaning in everyday tasks and pleasure in the company of grateful family? Why do we have to be misunderstood, detached, lonely and emotionally unavailable? Thinking about stuff nobody else gets? Or is it just me? ?

Fifa is a Western, biased, organization. Their purpose is to make money and play football. Not self-reflection and justice.

@LastThursday I wonder whether there is a similar deconstruction of the feminine myth? Is there such a thing?

Very interesting talk. I have a problem with one of the rules though. If someone consistently caused harm to themselves and to others, how would s/he be otherwise successful in life? Wouldn't there be a vacuum in the space where they act stupidly? Like socially stupid people would be lonely, or financially stupid people would be poor, etc? I get that we're multidimensional and that a stupid aspect of our life does not dictate overall quality of it, but to say that there are no signs of stupidity is an overstatement. It also seems to fly in the face of the idea that we learn because we suffer. Isn't it painful to be unsuccessful in an area that we have needs in? Maybe, stupidity comes from indifference to some aspect of ourself? Or maybe it is a form of lack of development that results in limited needs in some area?

@LastThursday I don't think that the purpose of this video was to oppose the masculine myth. I think that it was more of a reflection of a man that was entangled in it for his whole life. Don't you think that opposition strengthens the masculine myth? Any purpose higher than life is susceptible to this narrative, freedom included.

Imagine what kind of damage that would cause to the country.

@Scholar That was a good material. Thank you for sharing. I'll ponder it some more and maybe post my thoughts later.

Understanding something requires investigating reasons for it. Stating those reasons is not the same as making excuses. The fact is that everybody makes rational decisions within their frame of reference. Weak minds are incapable of stepping into the shoes of people who act against their interest.

I disagree with him, obviously. Ukraine is probably not a direct military threat, but an avenue for NATO to exert pressure on Russia. Still a threat though.

@Preety_India State your point.

You are right that this scenario is not a valid concern, but you are wrong that Ukraine is not a threat to Russia. If Ukraine was a NATO member, NATO could station its troops in Ukraine, Lithuania and Estonia, which would create enormous pressure on Russia along with current economic sanctions that are placed on this country. We are not talking about immediate war threats, but more about long term positional situation. If Ukraine trenched up in NATO, it would be next to impossible to change the geopolitical situation for decades. This is why the change of governance in Ukraine is threatening to Russia and Putin was willing to start a war over it. I agree.

@Preety_India @vizual I would expect that to Putin, Western government is extremist and because it is opposed to Russia, he would call it nazi.

And why does Russia need a buffer state? To protect itself from Poland? Lol It needs the buffer state to protect itself against NATO as a whole.

@Preety_India Have you tried googling your question? Here's a first page match for "why did Putin invade Ukraine"? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589

@Ryan_047 No offense taken. Thank you for a good conversation.

@Ryan_047 I can see that you are trying not to, but you are moralizing and being an idealist. A starving peasant that has been kept under a boot of a Korean regime for three generations has zero capacity for resistance. The choice you are presenting does not exist for him. Not "practically" does not exist, as in "nobody's gonna choose that for their own good", but literally. A thought of raising against the regime does not even occur in his mind. I understand your line of reasoning about working in any way for a regime, but as I already said, this is moralizing.and idealism. This view does not help anybody cope with the existence of violence, but morally justifies democracies and is a privilege of an educated, intelligent man of the West.

I could successfully argue the opposite. Leo attracted people here through his brilliance and marketing, and without him, this place would not exist. Many countries started and kept existing because of a strong leader that attracted people to his cause. The leader understood the needs of his subjects, and worked for the best interests of his allies. He served justice so that the country could flourish and passed heirs to assure smooth succession. On the other hand, the democratic view you are presenting breaks down in dictatorial states, where disobedience can get you imprisoned, or even shot. A farmer in Maoist regime is not responsible for Mao's actions because he does not even have the agency to decide his own fate. It is true that we can leave this forum when we don't like it (assuming we're not addicted to arguing), but this idea won't work in North Korea The view you are presenting is not exactly wrong, it's just very modern and democratic.

@Ryan_047 You are still stating your views without giving objective basis for it. Notice that you ground your argument in capitalist view in relation to workplace environment. Russians may not think in terms of "people giving power to government". They may think that Putin gave power to Russia by saving it from the collapse of the Soviet Union. They may think that he is a hero that sacrifices himself for the country and that this is the proper relation between a citizen and a country. The idea that a country is a being that is derivative from collective existence of many individuals is a Western one. In the East, the collective is more real than the individual.

@Ryan_047 I enjoyed reading your post and I have one question: What do you base your conviction that a nation is supposed to serve it's citizens, instead of the other way around? This is a western, individualistic point of view.