Basman

Neoliberalism on steroids. What I love about this setting is how analogous it is to our real world, being a parallel timeline, but where society regressed into a sort-of corporate technocratic feudalism due to extravagant levels of corruption and government incompetence. Its SD Stage Orange run amok to such a degree that society overall for the average citizen is SD Stage Red due the abject lack of resources. People fight over the scraps. You can see a lot of the same gears that run society in the real world in Cyberpunk. The political maneuvering. The competition. The survival agendas. Cyberpunk is essentially what happens when there is no one sovereign power. Instead there are a bunch warring powers vying for control but none of them succeeding completely in dominating the other and the resulting chaos that happens from the partial natural condition that exists as a result. Corporations also don't have any loyalty to society itself which results in there not being competently or properly funded social services beyond the needs and wants of the corporations (police are corrupt as hell). As long as they maintain dominance, corporations own society effectively. Its warring states in a technological neo-liberal corporate make-up. Its technologically advanced with flying cars and advanced cybernetic implants but there's rampant gang wars and blatant corruption. Its complete madness.

You can work yourself up to a position where you contribute to making a particular change in the world. Then at least you can say you've done your part. Remember, you live in the most prosperous time of human history. I wouldn't worry too much and just enjoy life for what its worth.

I don't have any experience with it but I've heard from Leo and the likes that that is essentially transhumanism. That a perspective devoid of a human agenda is no longer human. But even then, it seems he still has goals and ambitions. So human after all for the time being.

No, not fundamentally. Its a feature of finitude as we live in a finite world. It is possible to reduce suffering however. Like, we don't live in a feudal society for instance. History shows that slavery and wars have been reduced and that society is becoming gradually more egalitarian and "utopian" relatively speaking. For example, women have been second class citizen for most of human history. That has changed relatively recently. Long-term, society seems to become less and less destructive due to unsustainable practices becoming self-defeating as technology develops, both hardware and software (as in the quality of institutions and development of culture). Female oppression became self-defeating due to industrialization and the need for more workers (it wasn't a revolution in my opinion as much as a relinquishing of outdated practices). Its possible to reach a highly conscious and egalitarian society but then why should our civilization exist and not someone else's? Or at all? You have to accept that your selfish to a certain degree in this world.

For something to be there it something else can't be there at the same. Like if a cloud forms on an open blue sky, that automatically negates the existence of both a completely clear blue sky and a different cloud at the same time in that moment. You can't have both at the same time. For an animal to exist it must come at the expense of other things that could and want to exist in its place. Survival is maintaining your form for as long as possible until it inevitably passes on and changes. Everyday you immune system destroys millions of bacteria that threaten to undermine the integrity of your body. That is at their expense at the same time that those bacteria want to proliferate and survive at your expense. A predator-prey dynamic is simply the passing on of energy to maintain a form. Prey are in a sense themselves predators in the sense that they consume plant matter (life) in order to exist, which itself consume sunlight. It is not possible to live without it being at the expense of something else on a fundamental level. Its why I accept animal suffering for food to a certain degree. Human prosperity cannot exist without it being at the expense of nature to a certain degree.

I don't think I've ever seen a sex scene in a movie where you can actually see genitals. Sex scenes are more so implying sex is happening for plot reasons rather than reveling in it unlike porn. Porn is way more gratuitous and graphic. I don't get why you would feel awkward about a sex scene. Its not like its anywhere the same as porn. Its part of the plot. But then again I'm European.

Taking more than you reasonably need, usually at the expense of someone else. Like if there is a pizza party, you sneak extra slices on your plate so there's less for the rest. Its not about hunger at that point but simply wanting more, I.E. greed. Greed is defined by excess, when you want more than you need.

Your right. I guess I was preemptively reacting against keyboard warriors. I will however argue that the issue as a whole is overstated to a certain extent.

You just ask questions in the format of an "inner dialogue", trying to derive understanding of your issue. You just have to be patient but the understanding you derive from contemplation is in its own league in my experience because you thoroughly rake your mind over an issue, engaging with it on a deep level. Its should be hard to have strong opinions if you value truth and open mindedness. A feature of a high degree of intellectual integrity and rigor is that you constantly recognize potential flaws and counterpoints in your own and others arguments.

Just because a social construct is in essence arbitrary doesn't mean that they aren't functional and serve an important purpose (like money). Man and woman are highly functional social constructs that have stood the test of time for 1000s of years and work effectively for 95% of the population (if note more). Progressives go over board with deconstructing social constructs, throwing out the baby with the bath water while giving no room for debate without devolving it into a culture war. Especially in regards to practical issues like women's bathrooms, transwomen in women's sport, etc. The problem is that it comes of as frivolous and entitled to demand the rest of society to accommodate a highly niche cohort. The fact that the trans community comes of as highly inflexible and judgemental might have to do with the high positive correlation of being trans and being autistic (those are traits typical of autistic people). That said, there's nothing wrong with more fluidity in terms of gender for those who it applies to (and general tolerance for that) but its very entitled to act like all of society needs to change for their sake. Most people are happy being men and women. Why does that need to stop?

Honestly. It feels like since Trump won the election there's been a rise in low quality posts.

Raising boys and girls to be mature and successful men and women has been neglected the last couple of decades. I don't agree its a revolution, more like floundering due to frustration and grifters and marketers seizing on that frustration. Men don't live under abject oppression, they just need better role models so its not equivalent to the feminist revolution in the same way. This whole issue needs to be taken more seriously by society and not be turned into culture war brain rot. The majority of people are and want to be men and women and they should be taught how to.

You should account for circle of concern if you start talking about compassion, which is relative. We include historically disadvantaged people in our modern circle of concern, like homosexuals and women, but we don't include animals to the same extent (on a societal scale). In my opinion, talking about an ideal form of masculinity is inevitably influenced by your relative survival needs and has more to do with maturity rather than masculinity in essence. Are young men "unmasculine". I'd argue they are more likely just immature and lack experience that would round them out as people, like more feminine qualities for example. Masculinity in essence is simply a bunch of traits that make solving problems more effective if I where to give it a definition (whereas femininity would be the opposite, more about connecting and being more process oriented).

Healthy relative to what though? Conquest is what made their people. We wouldn't have first world countries without centuries of back and forth warring and conquest. I feel like this discussion has veered into idealism as opposed to understanding.

Would you say Genghis Khan was compassionate? Or Alexander the Great?

Slavery is just very practical from a survival perspective. I wonder if its at all possible to reduce it to 0% or if there will always be some decimal percentage of the population in a situation that is by definition slavery. Like for example Norway and Switzerland have 0.5% of the population in modern slavery according to them. I suspect most of those people are immigrants stuck with little education and opportunities.

You don't make this recovery center sound like a very competent place, especially with the therapist suggesting prayer (?). Was it privately run?

They weren't in a war, fighting for their lives. Its an extreme example admittedly. Point is, masculinity looks different based on the environment. There is no "right way" to be masculine in a monolithic sense.

Typically its the women who initiate a break up. They have already been thinking of it, checking out of the relationship, and when they do break up it is when they are finally emotionally ready for it. The dumper has a head start. They also tend to have friends and potential lovers waiting for them so its much easier for them to transition whereas guys get less emotional support.

You have to consider the environment that they might be surviving. Progressive men tend to be educated and work white collar jobs in air conditioned offices. Being "soft" and cooperative is a prerequisite for a life of bureaucracy and dependence on others to get things done. On the other hand conservative men generally tend to be blue collar, live out on the country side where they have to be independent to a certain degree and make themselves work hard. Being "soft" could get you in trouble. For example soldiers tend to be conservative, which is no mistake. Being empathetic could get you killed. There's a logic behind the tendency of dehumanizing your enemies in war, calling Russians "orcs" in the Ukraine War or Houthis "Tusken Raiders". Its ugly and you might not agree but there's a reason that its not simply "male insecurity". Consider that a conservative world view instills certain positive values that allow for survival in a tough environment, like work ethic and bravery which a cushy progressive first world kind of life doesn't need to same extent and therefor discards. That's anyone who's ideologically attached when you question their worldview. Try going into a feminist forum and challenge their views. You'll be torn down even if you are a healthy debater, factual and objective and all that. That's also kind of the problem with being a "debater". Its essentially verbal fighting and that tends to turn one into an angry bitter person.

I feel like this is kind of an America issue where you can't deal with people having different views than you. It seems to me like America has kind of a bigoted culture in general, both on the left and right side of politics. Bigoted as in attached to ones ideas and prejudiced against people on the basis of perceived affiliation to certain groups. You really have to deal with it in my opinion. There will always be people who think differently to you. That doesn't mean that the relationship can't be a good one. Its when you start judging someone that friction sets in, both you and the person your relating to. There have been raised a lot of good points already for why you shouldn't let politics determine the quality of your relationships. Its really kind of silly if you think about. Practice kindness and tolerance. If someone has views you disagree with, you can challenge them lightly at first to see how open they are to new ideas. Always frame rebuttals as questions. Then you are inviting your counterpart to think about the issue instead of preaching at them. If someone doesn't doesn't want their views challenged then that is their right. Doesn't mean you have to tolerate being in a relationship with them but only if they are actually an asshole. I personally enjoy the discussion for its own sake so I don't care if I'm right or not.

But it kind of is. A summary should reflect the quality of the book. Its like a taste test. First impressions count.

Define "fascism". You'll be more or less right depending on your definition of the word. A definition from Wikipedia: Is genocide or slavery inherently fascist? Those people are not civilians of the state so does the definition of fascism apply? What is "fascist style propaganda"? Is fascism just a call sign for far-right politics? I could try and guess what you think and react of that but I can't read your mind so I'll inevitably end up talking over you. Hard to take a posts like these serious without making what you mean explicit.

Pink huh... To be honest, I think its a hard sell unless you are going for a silly, unserious look. You could make it work by wearing a matching shirt or accessories. Pink sunglasses for example. Wear rolled up jeans then you'll really get that casual summer vibe.

The democrats losing this election to me is simply SD Stage Green running its course and failing to actualize on its idealism politically, fundamentally due to not understanding human nature and antagonizing the lower stages. There seems to be a general consensus that democrats need to self-evaluate. Hopefully it'll lead to more Yellow. That is a silver lining.