BlueOak

I agree that is who I look for. I used to always believe that as an absolute in all things. Recently, there has been a push in the collective for people to be the same more than complimentary in certain ways. Example: (2.30) is relevant to opposites. Nuanced:

I don't do fun and spontaneous. Not that kind of person. I am serious and planned. I loathe the term 'game' for example. Of course, I look at all those things, for me, that goes without saying. Shy smile, touch of the face, and kindness towards others draws my eyes. Are we relating in how we view the world, and are we connecting, does she have depth, creativity, and a playfulness I find initially interesting? That's the next level, and after that it's integrity: Is she honest, loyal to her friends and family? If I've got that far, it's going very well. Then, because I'm a man I'm looking at her beauty again, while the other half of my mind is trying to formulate something interesting that connects with what we've shared. You can say it proves nothing, but you can say that about anything. It's a first date. How she reacts will prove how she relates to me at this point, that's all I've got to work with.

Yeah, we have a chasm of difference in how we look at it, and that's fine. I understand your judgments better because I now understand how you view first dates. I don't mess women around, I am authentic all the time. If I date them I date them. I am not looking to get laid and leave. But they'd know that because I say something similar to them before they'd even met me in person. I don't attract partners who are not serious, and I don't attract people who don't know what they want or who they are: Meaning they have no problem telling me.

That's fine we wouldn't be compatible. The first date for me is a getting-to-know-you date, which is going on from both parties. Part of that is how is she regarding money and expectations. The very fact she'd make it a big deal, for example, would tell me a lot about how I'd relate to her. I am making money more important in my life and have been for some time, and is one of a hundred things I would unconsciously and consciously respond to on that date. Women will be scrutinizing plenty about me on that first date, and I will be with them also. However, the topic of the thread is what it is. Had it been what are the top three things I look for, we'd be having a different conversation.

I'll repeat what I said in the last one. If you are a provider, and they love that, they are loving that part of you. If that's all they love its a shallow relationship with not much relating or love going on. I gave two examples to filter this: Think of cheap, or better free, but sentimental and purposeful gifts you can give to her regarding your relationship, and see how she reacts when you give them to her. Ask her to pay half on the first date, it's not a perfect filter as people can object for different reasons. but it helps. That first date is all about getting to know each other, often on a surface compatibility level, which can quite honestly be as simple as agreeing (or disagreeing) on a location or activity to tell you something about her. Visual beauty is nice. Spiritual people are often interesting but until you are in close proximity, getting hot under your collar when she's standing 5 feet away, I don't call those things romantic attraction. This is why I detest dating apps honestly and much prefer the idea of speed dating in person. Dating apps can give you cerebral compatibility, but it's meaningless without that biochemical reaction going on.

The lifestyle you provide is part of you. If they love the lifestyle you provide, they are loving that part of you. If that's all they love, it's a shallow relationship with not much relating going on. Some people are shallow, or some people will never relate to you much, so don't get involved intimately with them. For money a fairly simple rule I have would be to ask the girl to pay half on the first date, I understand this puts more traditionally-minded women off but for me, it is a good filter. You can pay for the next 100 dates if she takes that first half/half. Also if she loves simple things that show you care or thought about her, that's a good sign. You can gauge these two very early on.

Quote: As President I hold the power to summon the Dáil as well as dissolve it. So as i said before, I would have all the answers the people of Ireland seek from these thieves of the working man, these disrupters of the family unit, these destructors of small businesses, and on and on and on! These charlatans in their positions of power would be summoned to answer to the people of Ireland and I would have it done by day end. Or I would be left with no choice but to dissolve the Dáil entirely. Stop the train until. The people of Ireland deserve the answers they seek. Point blank. This would be my power as President. I know very well. Ireland needs an active President employed wholly by the people of Ireland. It is me. I am the only logical choice. 2025 is upcoming… End Quote Source: https://x.com/TheNotoriousMMA/status/1831676863334273494 No plan then. Just rage against the machine. We might get a soft 90's anti-establishment repeat in the 30's, as I somewhat predicted, but it'll fall on its face unless AI really takes off to inspire a significant shift. The 20's did have an emphasis on image and materialism in it as the 80's did, but it's not the same energy now at all. More of this I suppose? Chaotic Rage Rage Rage ready to come out for a release.

Money is politics. The two are inseparable. All that can happen is people value different things which gives different people power. That doesn't happen much because the people with money ensure they remain in control. Let's say all large donations were removed from politics, and by determined effort, we could eliminate all financial incentives given to politicians. The people with money are still significantly shaping society and those same politicians and voters in the first place. They are some of the pillars which hold up society too, and keep it stable and functioning in the form it's in, they employ the best and they stay on top because they excel at competition. I guess that is part of the reason why conscious people were encouraging many of us to start businesses 10 years ago, in the hopes that a few people out of the many trying (or collectively) would earn enough money to have more significant influence, but when you weigh that against an oil company, weapons manufacturer, or banking firm who are the bedrock of how society functions, I see the futility of the gambit. Not to say things don't change around the edges, within the populace, or external stimuli, but I don't foresee a time even if we had stage yellow leaders where money wouldn't be the primary catalyst, inhibitor, or foundation of anything significant happening at all in politics or anywhere else.

Although our views are likely different, I have liked following your progress and want to continue to wish you the best of luck with it. Now you know the steps, you've just got to motivate yourself to do it and take the plunge once or twice. You can start small and learn the ropes, on an easier issue like a popular small local thing people want, and work up from there.

I used to regret the loss of information in decades gone by, we lost a lot of nuggets in the earlier days of the internet. All it takes is to mildly annoy the wrong advertiser, or person with someone with minor financial backing. We need to archive information better than we do, it can be very hit-and-miss with the methods we currently use. It is unfortunately something you will come across more with time. Worse, you'll unavoidably lose the people who put out that information also. This of course needs to be balanced as information is improved or updated, and allow for private personal data to still be wiped for individuals.

Can you provide examples of this decline? I see it as a constant, much like every other country. It might be better to say its changing. The core of sides for the latest round of world conflicts are well established now, so these countries mostly focus on those in the middle such as Turkey, while flaring up what each side would call extremism in the opposing territories.

Yes but you are still female. So you are still looking at it like a female to male, understandably so. In this scenario the woman isn't the defining factor, the other man is. The woman could have been anything, car, job, sports team, work performance, whatever. Its not a strong attachment at all as you mention, or the basis of a relationship toward the woman, it is merely how men are with each other, and forms part of their relationship with each other. The relationship with the woman, or anything else, is defined by different things not the competition between the men. (Unless she's into that, it is sometimes what sparks a girl's interest but not much more than that.).

That's because you are looking male to female, rather than male to male. It's in the male nature to compete with other men over anything. The male relationship to women is different but toward other men anything can have a competitive element in my experience. Often this can be as simple as a friendly banter checking people, or a more serious rivalry. It's also at work or in social circles for example. It's not in me as much but I can play along, I see it everywhere, and some people are naturally more competitive than others.

You don't need: To dominate others (yourself) for money. External pieces of yourself for validation. Popularity to feel good. You can have these things, but you don't need them. If you are seeking these things externally from the reality, then these are pieces of yourself that are actually thumping away inside your chest already, that you are either hiding from, running from, or fighting. Go within. Whatever it is in you that is seeking this sit with it, sit with that emotion in that state that comes up when you are feeling it. Don't do any of this, or that or the other, until you are okay with that part of yourself, and not just okay but you've completely embraced it internally. Embracing it can come in different forms, sometimes feeling it out, comforting it, learning from it, protecting it, and listening to whatever it's saying. Whatever it is for you, but don't freeze/fight/run from it. I allow visualisations too when I feel an emotion lodged in my body regarding something, often using inner child work, and if it's a chronic subtle state that can take some awareness to see it. Sometimes its me in the parent form, sometimes the kid is an equal, sometimes its running the show, have fun with it. Then see if the desire is still there, or if you are at a point of neutrality and balance. The reason I know you haven't embraced it internally is because you are still asking if you should do something. You are going to the reflections of yourself and asking us to structure your identity for you, rather than doing it yourself. I sympathize as my parents left me with no secure self identity whatsoever, and most of my life I was either imitating survival instincts or doing what you are doing: mimicking. You don't need any validation from anyone here whatsoever for your own identity. You build that from within by your own feelings and experiences.

What are you trying to connect to? This. I understand the culture war in society makes this less appealing, but meditate on this. Infinite love requires loving the part of you that wants this too. You are running away or pushing away something you are feeling and its causing you to splinter. This is how everyone divides themselves.

This is a good synchronicity; it's what I am watching right now at this spot.

It would kill whatever is left of the populist left, and probably hurt a populist center brand. The corporate left and center sure, they can grift. It's also about how ideological vs career someone is. A lot of these right wing personalities are just raking in whatever money they can, whereas a lot of the leftwing personalities are taking small donations with no major backers (with some obvious exceptions).

6 Commentators in total including: Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, and Lauren Southern https://www.vox.com/politics/370323/tenet-media-russia-what-happened-tim-pool-dave-rubin-benny-johnson-lauren-southern Though it spreads through the rightwing media outlets, to nobody's surprise. The video sums in up in the first few minutes who they are connected to.

Russian agents, bought and paid for. They are just more open about it now, or we have access to better data about their finances. The Russians have done a good job in the media space, better than people gave them credit for. But China, America, Europe etc do an even better job, as you usually aren't aware who they have paid to say what. It sometimes comes out who the Chinese agents are in England for example: https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59984380 But it isn't common.

The problem with free speech is it isn't free. 1, The platform dictates the speech. Money dictates the platform. 2, He who shouts loudest drowns out others. The internet and communication is designed poorly as a pyramid, as with most of society. 3, Luck and money dictate what is put into the public consciousness and what then becomes largely accepted reality. 4, People don't understand the power of 3. It literally changes your life every second of every day. 5, Skill and expertise is a far greater benefit than a loud voice or a big bank account, thus free speech as an absolute is a detriment to society. 6, I have touched on crisis situations but this applies to all situations with a risk factor. Poor information gets people killed, ruins their financial savings, families, and health. There is a lot of terrible information on social media. I don't mean opinions I disagree with, I mean objectively inaccurate information. 7, Then we can look at all the collective problems absolute free speech encourages, such as the breakdown of social order and cohesion. The polarization of society exists because too much emphasis is given on the individual not the society as a whole. If this were free speech, individuals need to be balanced with collectives in the public discourse. Not at a ratio of thousands to 1 in the information we are given. Because information isn't given relative weights of importance, its often purely egoic in who we like the sound of.

Look to foster communal ethics rather than individual moral adjustments. Which you are moving to in this line of thinking. 1, It'll save you time. 2, You won't get hung up on technicalities. 3, Morality isn't superior or inferior in an absolute sense. Meaning your morals are no more right or better than anyone else's. Instead there will be things you can get others to agree on but that forms the basis of communal ethics and perhaps a social contract. 4, Individuals are the collective - The collective is the individuals. If someone is having trouble understanding this, they either see themselves as purely an individual or purely part of a collective, rather than both, or better yet understanding there is no difference ultimately. If someone approached me and told me how hard their life was. I usually frame the discussion or answer based on resources and allocation. I recount how much houses cost now for young people compared to their income for example, while at the same time empathizing with the person's own life and situation. If you want empathy show it. Not everyone is capable of it, but a lot are when you show it to them.

I must admit I haven't kept up on Brazil or south America as closely as other countries or regions, especially this last year, with all my focus being in Ukraine - Russia, the Middle East , and East Asia too, as well as domestic politics I don't have as much time as I used to, to keep up. I will have to revisit that topic before I answer but I appreciate the adjustment, it makes more sense now.

Depends on the severity of the illness. If people are dying in a day and the infection rate is very high, yes If there is plenty of time for treatment and the risk factor is manageable, then it is manageable. If it's lethal and whoever is coming into contact is dying off, then yes, it needs to be controlled. China has too many people in too little space, and from what I have seen its food standards are not particularly high in terms of cleanliness. I apologize to any Chinese people if that is a poor choice of words, but the markets there do not look clean in my eyes and so disease spreads more easily. China also tends to just hide its problems away and pretend they don't exist to the world, which is the sad reality of some of those choices they make. This is one of those decisions where you have to weigh individual liberties vs the good of the community. There is no correct answer, just what protects the community hopefully balanced by the civil rights upheld by the state, if that state is somewhere I would consider living anyway.

In an uncertain situation where a large number of lives are at risk, the procedure is to control information given to the public, both for their safety and for the people affected. This has always been the policy of governments. Given the way information has developed to be shared so freely and easily I can understand the innate resistance there is in people toward this procedure. The point is we don't know. In a crisis situation often we don't know, and because we didn't know I feel there should have been a stronger lockdown, and that Sweden got it right in protecting their elderly nursing homes above all else, but that is my view, and above is your view. My government's view is: Here is the relevant sub document: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/communicable-disease-outbreak-management-operational-guidance/communicable-disease-outbreak-management-operational-guidance From: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/communicable-disease-outbreak-management-operational-guidance With passages such as: Recognition of an outbreak and initial response Outbreaks may be recognised by UKHSA, local authorities, NHS or public health microbiologists, FSA or service providers. Each organisation has its own procedures for surveillance, detection and control. Immediate contact between these parties is essential as soon as it becomes apparent that an outbreak may exist, so that the parties can share situational awareness, undertake a risk assessment, and agree lead responsibilities, timelines and level of response required. Immediate control measures should be implemented as per relevant guidance, and investigation to clarify the nature of the outbreak should begin within 24 hours of receiving the initial report. The following steps should be undertaken to establish significant facts and inform the decision to declare an outbreak: confirm the validity of the initial information (for example, ascertainment bias, laboratory false positives) consider the tentative diagnosis and whether all cases have the same diagnosis conduct preliminary interviews with cases to gather basic information including any common factors collect relevant clinical and/or environmental specimens form preliminary hypotheses consider the likelihood of a continuing risk to public health carry out an initial risk assessment (see Appendix 6) manage initial communication issues Declaration of an outbreak Locally confined outbreaks will usually be recognised and declared by the CHP or senior health protection practitioner. Where appropriate this will be following consultation with a consultant microbiologist or relevant environmental health officer (EHO) and occasionally the DPH. For more widespread outbreaks, such as those that are national or regional, the outbreak may be recognised by FS, a consultant or senior epidemiologist, national UKHSA disease expert or the FSA. It is possible that a widespread outbreak may be initially recognised as sentinel ‘local’ outbreaks. For local incidents the UKHSA HPT region should inform the DPH and, if required, ICBs. For standard and enhanced incidents (Appendix 3) relevant external bodies such as NHS England should be notified. NHS England will provide oversight and support to ensure that alerts from UKHSA are actioned. Convening an outbreak control team Following the recognition and declaration of an outbreak, a decision regarding the need and urgency to convene an OCT is required. This decision should be guided by a risk assessment. The rapid establishment of an OCT is particularly appropriate if an outbreak is characterised by: immediate or continuing significant risk to the health of the population one or more cases of serious communicable disease a large number of cases cases identified over a large geographical area suggesting a dispersed source significant public, political or reputational interest If no formal OCT is convened, it is likely it will still be necessary to take public health actions and liaise with partners and stakeholders. When a decision has been made not to declare an outbreak, the responsible CHP should review the situation at appropriate intervals and be prepared to declare an outbreak if required. This may involve consulting with the other parties to assist with ongoing surveillance. End quote. This is a portion of that subdocument, and there is a lot more to read. Are you beginning to see how information is vetted for accuracy and delivered in an effective and useful form to the public during a crisis situation? It isn't some guy heard something and then decided to tell everyone to do it. Its a 1000 experts in their field working together for the good of the public. To say there is no evidence that these methods save lives after millennia of disease outbreaks is absurd. It's to stop it spreading. It's to stop people dying so they can have the best chance to get through it. It's to track where the disease is. It's to evacuate places if they need to be evacuated. To track how it came about and if it's likely to mutate. It's to limit panic and damage to the economy or people's day-to-day lives, to stop large-scale public unrest or the breakdown of social order etc..

An example of a billionaire believing he's above the law. Brazil is aligning authoritarian and with BRICS so the ban on free speech doesn't surprise me procedurally, but it also does, because X somewhat aligns with Brazil's trajectory.