Basman

You definitely could be stricter I think. Like, what is this thread about? "I have an enlarged ass and these jawas are groping me but I'm okay with it." No serious inquiry or discussion here, just really waffling about one self. This is an example of a low quality post in my opinion and possibly trolling. I think you could (as in the mods) do more soft warning and time outs, where a user can't post for X amount of time. If a user makes a low-quality post, the user should be put in time-out for 12-48 hours where they can't make any more posts. A good example of a soft warning was the previous post you made in this thread: It acknowledges that there might be tomfoolery about, which might not be tolerated. I think more "soft warnings" in this style could potentially help moderate problematic posting without needing to be overly "letigative". Just like reminders to be civil, etc. If you feel the need to call out a specific user though I think at least a time-out is warranted.

One of the qualities of this forum is there is a relative diversity in thought. For example, you could admit to being a pedophile on this forum and have a meaningful discussion without getting instantly banned as long as you don't condone abuse. A super progressive and woke forum like Resetera will ban you for way less. Just for not agreeing or talking about the wrong topic. Racial preference is probably not that uncommon. Just ask yourself which races you find the most attractive.

It's not necessarily helpful that AI is overly "nice" to you and your ideas. Ideally, AI should challenge and expand your thinking. Not coddle you and your beliefs.

Fun fact: the diaphragm is asymmetrical with the right diaphragm being situated higher than the left with a stronger connection to the spine due to the left lung being smaller in order to fit the heart and the liver being underneath the right diaphragm. If you shift your weight to one side, you'll breath more with the lung of that side and because the right lung is bigger with a stronger diaphragm we have an unconscious bias to shift towards the right. It is apparently normal to have a slight scoliosis towards the right due to the influence of the right diaphragm. https://pritrainer.com/lateral-pelvic-tilt-cause-fix/

Go on to Twitter and just look at how inanely mean spirited everyone is and tell me they are not crazy. To be fair, this forum could be worse.

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.