Basman

I just assume that everyone online is an insane person. Especially people on this forum. Perfectly contextualizing everything that happens online. I'm the exception of course.

You have to justify wanting to regulate the far-right first. The best justification I can come up with is that the far-right spread malignant ideologies and misinformation that undermine democracy and stable society. Checks and balances that block unfit candidates from entering office is one way to regulate the far-right, like for example Trump shouldn't be able to enter office on the basis that he doesn't take advice or reads reports as a president. The information space needs to regulated for misinformation more and there needs to be more progressive/academic information sources that can compete with the conservative information sources (conservative sources dominate social media currently). But it is a bit of misdiagnosis to focus on ideology directly, which is alluded to in the original post. A lack of trust in institutions, a lack of education and a general depoliticized populace is the problem. Identity politics is more so the symptom. There needs to be more politically actionable proposals presented. One advantage Trump had over the Democrats during the election was the perception that he was going to solve people's economic problems through specific measures like tariffs. Regardless of truth, people felt like those where actionable proposals that would lead to better outcomes. The problem with identity politics is that it is essentially just moralizing. It is basically just espousing one's identity (it is in the name even). Moralizations aren't actionable and don't convince people who don't already share your values or aren't open minded to sharing your values, so you actually accomplish very little politically when you base your argument on what is ultimately open-ended value statements ("abortion is murder", "capitalism is evil", "the police are racist oppressors", "your being transphobic and transphobia is bad"). You don't necessarily need to share ideology to vote for sensible policy. Just present people with a convincing actionable proposal that presents an enticing vision, like for example effectivizing/decreasing military spending via universal social benefits or stabilizing the economy by taxing top earners and businesses.

Well yeah, women are talent scouts. The asymmetry is that there are more guys looking to mate with attractive women than there are available women. The major difference between now and then is that women are no longer dependent on getting married in order to survive. Less women are going enter relationships or stick with them like they used to given it is no longer a necessity. Probably a skill issue, but that is a good thing. The advantage that men have over women is that men can do more to improve themselves. An ugly women has way less options. Plenty of ugly dudes get hot chicks. I find that this theorizing about how useless and powerless you as guys are is the male equivalent of how neurotic women fantasize about how everyone hates them. Go on a feminist subreddit and it is all complaining about how everyone is out to get them.

How does that work exactly? You can't horde relationships in a bank account like you can do with money. There's no way half of the human population is exclusively dating men who are rich and tall, which is probably only about 1-3% of the male population, or at least rare. Women just tend to date older, which is not new. The older you get, the more the relationship discrepancy between men and women equalizes (to about 30-40% being single) (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valentines-day-5-facts-about-single-americans/).

There's a certain irony to wanting to ban Only Fans effectively when the platform gives sex workers greater control over the means of production. But I guess Sweden doesn't want sex work to be a thing at all. The more prudent question is if sexual services is a form of violence against women or just in general?

I couldn't find any corroborating sources in English but it is true that there is proposed legislation that buying porn in Sweden to be legally equated to hiring an escort, which is illegal in Sweden. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/debatten-raser-i-sverige-efter-regering-overvejer-goere-koeb-paa-onlyfans-forbudt Here's the actual proposed bill (in Swedish): https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/ff14c4cee77548e3bf970bae5cfb84e0/skarpt-syn-pa-sexuella-krankningar-bedragerier-mot-aldre-och-brott-med-kon-som-hatbrottsmotiv-prop.-202425124.pdf

Imagination is really the king of masturbation. Whatever material you are masturbating to is always overlaid by personal imagination in my experience. Brazzers, erotica or hentai are all to a certain degree equivalent in that regard. There's also the argument to be made that the things you fantasize the most about are emotional experiences that you crave. Like rape fantasies are about desiring control/feeling desired for example.

You seem to imply that "consciousness" as a trait changes one's behavior to act more moral in a certain sense? What do you define "consciousness" as exactly and how are you sure you aren't just conflating it with a kind of moralism, which would be culturally informed? What if molesting monks are enlightened? Does that change the dynamic at all?

Enjoying the aesthetics of a game is pretty huge actually. It's why developers put so much time and resources into how a game looks. Morrowind has some great ideas that give it a lot of depth which I wish more modern games would learn from, such as description instead of simple quest markers, but the moment to moment gameplay is just not very good in my opinion. The depth is really all that the game has going for it whereas Fortnite feels good the fifteen or so minutes that you play it. Depth design-wise can be a bit of a catch-22 since over a certain point it can make the moment to moment gameplay more clunky and less fun. For example, in Squad in order to build a base so your teammates can respawn, you need at least one other player and a squad leader + resources in order to build a base whereas in Hell Let Loose, a similar hardcore shooting game, you just need a squad leader and resources to build a spawn point. The former has more tactical depth and gravitas but the latter is much more seamless and less dependent on cooperation. Hardcore shooters are a different genre but it does illustrate that dichotomy between depth and playability. Walking slowly everywhere in Morrowind, taking the giant bug buss instead of fast-traveling does make the game feel more immersive and is satisfying as you unlock different ways of traveling like using magic (depth) but does objectively drag when you don't have those options and isn't necessarily more satisfying to play overall than if you have the option to fast-travel.

Which is why enlightened Buddhist only stick to molesting one boy instead of a dozen.

@Leo Gura Your Russian heritage might just be showing. East-Europeans love their janky RPGS.

Morrowind is honestly a chore to play. I like how self-driven it is but it is generally really outdated. Most NPCs are walking tourist brochures and the combat is really bad. If you are not using exploits somehow, your kind of losing. And it is so slow. I wonder how much of this ragging on Oblivion is just because of aesthetics. Oblivion looks very generic because it was made of the LOTR craze at the time. Like, the world building is still amazing and the quests are way better though less esoteric. I find that boomer gamers tend to prefer older games because of their aesthetics primarily but they never admit that openly. Like with Minecraft boomers preferring old Minecraft but all their reasons why you can do better in modern Minecraft.

We could vote to just gas all gays and minorities. That would be democratic. Authoritarianism and democratic monarchism is more due to depoliticization. Liberal beliefs and democratic principles are not a sufficient condition for democratic participation (Voting for authoritarianism is democratic for example). It is correct to say that the focus on identity politics is a consequence of depoliticization however. A lot of the same people enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders voted Trump last election. A significant amount of people didn't even vote.

Getting sex for women is not the challenge nor as meaningful to them as it is for men. For them, the challenge is finding someone who is good for them beyond just the bedroom. It can be a real challenge to sort for a good man when nearly every man is yes to sex but not necessarily even clear on if they want a serious relationship. If you want to understand the asymmetry of human mating then it is not sufficient to only see it from a male lens. A lot of guys seem to get bogged down in a male-centered perspective and get resentful when female behavior doesn't make sense to them in combination with their failures.

Social media has the tendency to over-represent more extreme and emotionally engaging views because of how engagement dictates exposure. The "silent majority" is practically invisible because they have no need to engage in discourse that appears from the outside as superfluous and overtly hostile. I don't think society is necessarily going insane population wide but western societies tend to be very depoliticized which can leave them vulnerable to institutional degradation and democratic monarchism and corruption. "Who cares who runs the country as long as I can browse my cat memes and go to Target? It is not my problem if migrants are being illegally deported."

Maybe I'm just shit at smoking but I never get really high from weed those rare times I'm offered a joint except the first time I smoked it. Perhaps I'm just built sober because I've had next to no drugs growing up or dependencies and cravings as an adult, even coffee. I'm very glad that I grew up sober. There's probably a strong genetic correlation relative to how you respond to weed. A lot of people seem to smoke once in a while and are fine just as there are a bunch of people that drink without abusing it. There seems to be a correlation with a lack of ambition and smoking weed but it could be that people who aren't ambitious tend to gravitate towards it (as ambition itself might be genetic to a certain extent).

Comparing sexual abstinence to drug use implies that taking drugs is a human need, which I find a dubious claim. I'm not sure to what degree but drug use is heavily correlatory with culture in my opinion. Coffee and alcohol are normalized drugs that give social proof. You actually become more social to take these drugs to than if you don't. If decriminilazation leads to the normalization of certain drugs you could potentially create a culture where more drugs become a normalized part of culture. I'd make the claim that any recreational/lifestyle drugs are more harmful than good in most cases. It would therefor be problematic to liberate cultural acceptance of drugs if it leads to increased drug use in my opinion. At least there needs to be a culture of sobriety.

Your body was probably telling you to rid yourself of those teeth because rotting teeth aren't exactly good for you. I find that the body knows what you need to do in life a lot of the time if you listen to it.

Nope. Human cognition and behavior would have to be a hierarchical system to qualify as a strange loop, which isn't the case. Humans clearly act on survival interests which isn't sufficiently paradoxal.

I wouldn't take 20 million and turn 85 because I would cut my life short from the things I value. I can't directly buy the meaningful experiences I want. I wouldn't take 20 million and turn into Jordan peterson just because he has some good opinions on basic self-help. I wouldn't want his health issues or his anger and self-righteousness. Or cry all the time. I wouldn't take 20 million and turn into Leo because I don't want his health issues or his baldness and his life is built around values different to my own. I'd make my own thing instead of living someone else's life like it is a skin suit.

Is an authoritarian brain the cause of or the result of authoritarian politics?

Chinese, Israelis, British, Russians and Americans are all in the top five worst tourists in the world. I don't know who eeks out the top but the competition is fierce.

In my experience, the rudest and most abrasive people I've met where Israeli when I visited the country. Some of the worst customer experiences I've ever had. I once ordered a veggie burrito or whatever it was called but there was chicken in it so I told them they got my order wrong so the lady at the counter without even looking at me snatches the thing out of my hands and plucks out the chicken bits so it's just a salad roll. Another time I qued up to buy some ice cream and when I reached the till I looked down at fridge to pick one out. When I looked back up the lady at the counter was staring at me like I've shat in her cereal. Just gawking at me fiendishly (👺). There where plenty of other experiences where I felt like a stranger with people yelling or staring aggressively or cutting in line. This was all in a trip that lasted 10 days. Edit: I swear I didn't pick the tengu emoji because it has a big nose by the way...

@Consept I've been sexually harassed once while taking a shower by another man and the people of my group, who where mostly girls, just laughed it off. You know if the genders where reversed they would've lost their shit, so there's definitely a double standard that people aren't even cognizant of. To be honest, I don't think sexual harassment against men is equally severe as that against women due to the size difference (prove me wrong if you can) but it is more just the lack of respect. I don't know what you should do exactly in your situation but it sounds like the harassment needs to come down, because that is what it is. Are the other guys in the group aware?

See if there's a philosophy salon in your area.