Bobby_2021

Because we are dirt poor in India. Women and Men are forced into high paying careers whether they like it or not. As a consequence more people choose stem fields. Even if you are man and you do not like stem, you have to study it. Women are not exception. There are not many choices here. In Sweden, you have a lot more freedom to choose your career choices. So women naturally opt for traditionalist career choices. More power to them. The idea that women faces discrimination in STEM and face more hurdles than men is way overblown to fit their narrative. In fact more women are forced into stem, because they generally pay more.

The whole point of the study was to eliminate the effects of culture/environment. And then extrapolate the findings. We can measure the freedom and cultural limitations placed on individuals from different cultures. So the less limitations there are, the more women choose traditional career choices. Which is why India has more participation of women in stem than the United States or Sweden. In fact the more freedom you give to individuals the more they choose careers that are in alignment with their genetics. If you eliminate the effects of culture, all that remains is genetics. Which is why I said genetics is the reason for the differences in interests of men and women. But now you will say, " What proof do you have that genetics determines the gender differences? " It is a bias from the "environmental/nurture" gang. They will demand proof for why genetics is the reason for the gender differences while they do not feel any obligation to prove why environment/culture is the deciding factor in determination of choices of individuals. They gloss over that point. We are supposed to accept that culture is the main factor in the differences without question. The thing about environment/culture is that you can control it, eliminate it's effects and measure the effects of gender. The research has been done. I am not pulling this out of my ass. Also, I am not saying that environment has zero effect at all. Obviously if you don't have access to food and water, then it is going to affect you a lot in the choices you make. But you can study people who are not binded by any cultural/environmenal pressures of any kind. The only explanation left is genetics.

@zurew All I am saying is that killing yourself is not the solution to end the suffering. Because I do not see how it is the solution. It could end up better or worse. If you are advocating for suicide as the solution, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that it gets better. Else it would not be a solution. I do not discount the possibility that it could better after killing yourself. But like you said, you do not have proof for it.

That is their definition, not mine.

Gender is a social construction. I have my own definition of gender and sex, which is a solid definition. Gender fluidity literally means you can identify as whatever you want whenever you want. Such a world view is not even internally coherent, and ambiguous. I do not have ambiguity in my definitions. Which is what a definition is supposed to be. I want clarity not mental gymnastics. I heard that 50% of those papers in academia could not even be replicated. It is just a boatload of crap. You can also derail a conversation by bringing in unnecessary complexities and technicalities and make the discourse go nowhere.

You not having seen the proof is not proof of it not existing. Go research on the "Gender Equality Paradox". Then what is the source of those differences? Having an advanced paper to support your claims does not mean what you are saying is true. If that was the case, all the experts should be agreeing with each other. Women get plenty of social acceptance for being engineers as well. There is a strong push to include more women in stem from the powerful institutions, spending millions of dollars into diversity hiring etc..which men do not have. I was talking about that difference. Heck, the supposed more patriarchal countries have more women in stem than the advanced liberal countries. You do not address any of this and say there is not any proof. The acceptance that men get is a consequence of the money he makes from engineering roles, being of higher pay, not because he choose engineering per say. If women makes that much money in nursing, she would as much acceptance. I do know. You are the one who does not know to be frank. And you also assume that not knowing is somehow gives validity to the claim that all gender differences are merely a social construction, which is the real bullshit. Also I would like to read on your position? Are you claiming that none of us know? or do you have proof to substantiate your position rather than glossing over possibilities?

Watch these videos if you are stuck in western propaganda. Come down to the ground reality. Brilliant Discussion from Seven Dagdelen: Blocked Peace deals: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/09/us/politics/biden-putin-tucker-carlson-peace.html?smid=url-share

Man I read the title as "Joe Biden Won" with BiBi in the background. I was so pissed lol.

@Hardkill I don't say that taxes dot help in strengthening the economy. In fact that's the only purpose of taxes. But I disagree that it could be used for reducing inequality. The economic growth under Biden and increases taxes on the rich was a way to counter the massive economic stimulus. Of course all these money would eventually end up in the hands of corporations and the 1% so increasing taxes was the bare minimum you could do. If you give cash to people without assets, they would give away that cash to people with assets. Simple logic. So it will eventually exacerbate inequality for the short term benefits of boosting the economy. The economic boost is that stimulus money moving to the top, around 800 billion. And even more went to develop vaccines which is more money to the big pharma. These are not reducing inequality, in fact the exact opposite of it. Not actual value was added to the economy during the pandemic. But there was increased spending, which is enough to qualify for economic growth, but it's not meaningful growth.

No one disagrees that life can be hard. What's the solution? Is the solution to end yourself? You got no clue if you can end the suffering, by ending the body. If it's the body that's torturing you, then you would be correct. But if it's the mind that's torturing you, then killing yourself will NOT end the sufferings of the mind. It's not a joke when you say, killing yourself is not the answer. It's literally true. You don't know if killing yourself will end the suffering or makes it worse. Most people don't think about this. It's like taking huge debt with no concerns on paying it back. Life will make you pay no matter what. Do not die in debt.

You can have even more nuance. The fact that we even have women excel in engineering roles is not because women love engineering, but because of a contrived push from society to make more women engineers and mathematicians against their will. Do men have such encouragement from society? Nope. They become engineers at large because of their neurological wiring. But women have many incentives to become engineers and advantages offered to them by society. And still there aren't enough women engineers. Which is why India and the middleast east has more women in stem as opposed to US or Scandinavian countries. Because we force women to take up engineering against their will for obvious reasons. Given enough freedom, even lower of women will choose engineering because of their own genetics and their interests. It's not like women were desperate to be crane operators only to be disheartened by seats being oversized and have to return home. Women are not interested in operating cranes in huge numbers. If they were, we would be building them to fit their size. It would also mean an economic incentive since women would be paid less, according to their own words.

I am not saying that you couldn't publish a book citing gender differences. There are plenty out there. The claim was that you cannot use those books to teach students in academia. That was the context of the discussion. ------------ @Leo Gura Those people are not overly political. These are normal parents of kids who are radicalised. There are plenty of such people in the general populace. Let's just say even one woman exist who is so pissed off by the textbooks. She will take it to the court: "My lord this textbooks are so patriarchal and misogynistic Women can be engineers as men or better, if not for the hundreds of millions of years of oppression". Court makes observation: "This woman sad. Make woman happy. Pass law. Ban textbook." Courts can be used by anyone to overthrow popular stuff with or without political will. Take abortion for example. Most people want access to abortion. But courts can simply take it out given that there are a motivated small group of people who can make it happen. Which is why the structure of the society itself makes it impossible. It is meant to appease crazy people. Not for consciousness or Truth.

This matter is more complicated than most people give credit to. I agree that I didn't do justice to explain it well. Taxes are necessary. But they serve a different purpose in the economy than most people think. It's just that the purpose is to not fund things. You might think that you need to raise taxes to do stuff. But taxes are here to hold the economy in shape. It is a tool used by the government on the economy. The government do not need taxes to fund its own stuff. At the end of the day, you need a functional economy. That's the first priority in economics. Taxes help in a functional economy. Taxes will not be helpful in idealistic causes like reducing inequality by taxing the rich. That is not what taxes are meant for and that is coming from a fundamental misunderstandings of how the economy and taxes work.

There was no written agreement. And the offer for neutrality is under the pretext that US give security to Ukraine in form of weapons and aid. But buying such weapons and aid is the way unit getting into NATO. Putin isn't going to be fooled by this. We all know how much they will honour the "talks" as we have seen in the past lmao. You know very well that Ukraine's opinion doesn't matter just like Europe. US and Russia are the player in the game. If Trump comes of office, then he could pull US out of NATO. There is no one who is more critical of NATO than Trump. That would be the end of NATO as we know it. NATO itself is founded on the incestuous relationship of providing security to Europe in return for Europe giving away their foreign policy to US. There are too many structural issues within the alliance. Russia is a military style economy and has been for a while. Europe is a chill man's economy. They are not made for war time scenario. 2 years of war and they will quit. In contrast to the average Russian man who has a sense of national patriotic duty to mother Russia.

1. NATO DID NOT make it clear at all that Ukraine won't be joining NATO. They had an "open door" policy. There were plenty of talks and negotiations taking place in Moscow and US both in person and via calls. NATO kept Ukrainian membership open and was working towards it. Read the press release from the official US govt. https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-a-press-availability-13/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/ Take note of the dates. All of this were happening in a span of 4 months before the Invasion. The "Ukraine wouldn't be joining NATO anyway" claims are bogus. You can make claims that Ukraine weren't really going to join NATO. But NATO membership was a real possibility. 2. Neutral Ukraine is unrealistic. Either it will be pro Russian or pro American. A candidate promising neutrality will not get elected. Just being realistic here. For the sake of argument, yes, Putin would have been okay with a neutral Ukraine. A neutral Ukraine is not a security threat to Russia. Hence no Invasion in this case. @Karmadhi Let me know if there is some ambiguity or a need for more clarification in my claims. It's childish to not see the security concerns that Russia have despite the issue being so glaringly obvious. What's even more childish is the claims that Putin wants to reclaim the former USSR and annex all of Europe. If anyone has too much land already that they could manage, that would be Russia. Give me a break.

😂😂

That's true. But there are insane 1% of people on the either extremes. These loud 2% is enough to overthrow the sane majority. 2%, being a conservative estimate. No way you are going to get printed on paper, men are more suited for engineering roles, and women are for nurses. That just will not happen. You can say that, but not on paper.

Yes. That's why I advocated to starve her for a week. She is lost in endless psychological battles which will eventually start affecting her body also. She needs to bring her attention back to the body.

It's hard to to articulate since the masculine repression is, well, it's repressed. It will not find expression unlike toxic masculinity. One striking example is in how office spaces today has become sterilized and contrived environment due to policing hy the HR departments on how men should behave in office spaces. Even complements to women are dangerous. And you cannot directly talk to women or be too confrontational. You have to be sensitive all the time. On the surface all this looks good, but if forces men to walk on egg shells all the time. Or you have to be in a different mode when women are here. A new grad complained on social media about how corporations were discriminating him for getting women placed and they revoked his offer letter. He was devastated. It's like you can't say anything that mildly offends the feminist hive mind. They say men should open up about their struggles and when they do they are met with this treatment. This walking on egg shells drives people mad. But they all repress it internally and needs time with the boys to decompress from this madness. It's also a reason why I tried extra hard to not work in office jobs. It will drive me crazy. You have lots of internalized misogyny. jk.

Putin isn't even interested in talking the whole of Ukraine, let alone Moldova. What is he supposed to do with it? Seriously. It's a pain in the ass to manage this war torn hell. This is the caricature portrayal of Putin which is the work of western propagandists. It's cartoonish to say the most powerful man in the world is desperate for a little piece of land lmao. In the modern world, wars are not profitable to either side. Especially for Russia, who is not drowing in cash. He was forced into invasion to address the security threat to his nation.

All that Europe/US has to do is to NOT threaten the internal stability & peace of mother Russia. This war has been disastrous for Russia and still is. He is enduring that since he had no choice. He will be forced to take extreme measures to ensure security and peace. Don't drive them to that extreme. Logic has no significance when your security is threatened. It's not too much to ask for.

I have a bunch of questions on solipsism that I want to clear up when I meet Leo. It's better if it's answered in person. First question is, do you really exist?

Those wars have proven to Putin that it's pain in the ass to manage these conquered territories. Just like it will be a pain in the ass to manage these conquered Ukrainian territories. Those wars may have been fought with expansionist ambitious, but not so much the war in Ukraine. That era of peace was under the mutual Trust of not expanding NATO eastwards. The moment they broke the trust, would lead to a chain of events resulting in the Ukraine war. Once they arrive back in boxes, then it would lead to internal collapse of NATO. Putin does not want a war. But Eruopean countries leaders acting like he does, may lead to a war. I say European leaders. Not the European populace. European populace is not made for war. Look at the protests over killing arabs in Gaza. And you think they are going to tolerate their husbands and sons getting killed like that? It's a joke that you think it's a regional power. Looooool. Cute that you even think you can match the US military. You don't have to. Just suck up to US anytime you end up in a crisis. That crisis will be engineered by the US so don't worry. Just like Israel. I don't blame the EU states. EU doesn't want war and they act like it. They spend less than 2% of GDP on military. It's the US that gets them in trouble by their expansionist ambitions.

It's getting out of hand.

Well it's Europe's war. Why would Europe suck up to America to deal with its own shit? Because Europe has no independent standing without US. Your reliance on US is making it obvious. Europe is not doing shit to counter Putin. Barely riding their big daddy's back.