bebotalk

That's part of streamer/content creator culture. He would have no case to complain. If he did, then he's a pussy and has no place in the content creation space.

To dipshit men's rights advocates, maybe. Feminism in the true/traditional sense means men and women have equal legal standing. I do't see the issue with that. if you do, then fine good on you. You still brought up feminism as means to push some weird MRA agenda.

By our scientific metrics, yes. But science relies on our senses, which are limited. We can't sense things that other species can, such as infra-red, or sound at a specific dB level or distance. Our sense of smell is inferior to dogs, cats, and many other mammals. So what is "fact" is limited to our miniscule perception of the universe. Postmodernism might be cringe in its fullest sense, but it's valid in the sense it shows that absolutes are limited and we cannot be sure of what truly is absolute.

https://youtu.be/_gml3y6Gq6g Onlyfans has definitely changed the porn industry, cutting out porn studios which in themselves can be exploitative. This discussion was interesting, though I side more with Farha/Destiny in this case. I don't think it is inherently exploitative. Bad actors can make it such, but these don't represent all onlyfans creators. I've used onlyfans from time to time, but I've never thought that a model I sent messages to liked me or was a potential lover. I'd say the majority of people who use it engage with it similarly. I don't think it's healthy to curtail things that a minority for whichever reason (,e.g. disability, neurodiversity, loneliness, etc.) will get suckered in by.

PUA from that 2011/2012 era was just a scam. It was just an attempt to get guys into a dating ideology that was based on fluff. Just like the redpill today."David D'Angelo" is Eben Pagan, and Mystery has disappeared from any real online content these days. Now the redpill is dying, with Samuels's death, the Tates being under charges and Fresh and Fit being discredited, then a similar avenue will emerge in a few years. PUA was always sus - it focused a lot on clubs and bars, which aren't the only place to find women. It focused on given kinds of women, as in hot, socialite, etc. And its techniques like negging only worked or still work on women of a given psychological make-up.

China's rise to superpower status is a concern. Who defines what the concerns are?

Why didn't she then start a channel dissing HIM? that would have been a proportionate thing. and he'd have no way to dispute this. Doxxing is a different level. Moist Critical was based in his analysis. Not all acts are equal. Not all wrongs or harms are equal.

Japan has different dynamics, whilst being wealthy isn't really Western culturally. China definitely isn't Western culturally. Birth rates are declining due to a variety of factors, and not just due to women having equal rights with men. Moreover, job opportunities depend on the industry, one's education level, location, etc. So should women again be second-class citizens? You're taking some barbed bigoted views and conflating them with established economics. Goods being more expensive also has a variety of factors causing such. Oh, and Russia isn't Western nor industrialised, and Putin himself isn't an advocate of gender equality lool.

Not all forms of harm are equal nor are quantifiable. I respect your view but I do not agree. Her act in going to his house imho was distinct from him posting vids about her. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially wrongs of equal severity or nature. Doxxing is legal given the circumstances, so I don't see the connection nor relevance of your point. I stand by my view, and I respect your view. My view aligns with that of Moist Critical, whom you posted. You're essentially saying "he harmed him, so she can harm him back!!" I don't think any harm is justified by an initial attack.

Doxxing is way more dangerous potentially. I don't see the equivalence. Doxxing generally is bad since it can lead to real-world harm. Where is the harm in the real world in a channel? Can one get attacked or harassed in public or in one's home? Yes, she's human. She had as she said a "lapse in judgment". But that doesn't mean such conduct can be excused. IMHO at least, if a person takes an existing quarrel to another level, then they gain more moral weight in the scenario. If a couple disagrees over who should wash dishes and gets groceries, and one party breaks another's computer in anger, then this crosses a line and is a needless escalation. You're suggesting that the mere fact he had a cringe channel on her justifies her act on going to his house to "talk". I don't agree.

Yes, I get she had a perfect right to be aggrieved at his channel. But that doesn't justify going to his house to "talk". Two wrongs don't make a right. and her reaction wasn't proportional to his bad act. I don't agree that her act of going to his house, and finding out where he lives no less, is a legitimate response. I would still maintain that she took an unjustified step to a legitimate gripe. I agree with Moist Critical in the vid you posted.

Humans like most species does what is more optimal and comfortable at a given time.

If there are UFOs, then why? What do these aliens want? Is it surveillance, and if so for what end? If there are state secrets in actually contacting aliens, then why not tell the masses? Would there be mass fear? I think most can handle the concept of aliens existing, unlike in prior times.

That hasn't happened since WW2 due to the presence of nuclear weapons. It nearly happened in the Bay of Pigs Crisis. There were noted near misses before and after where individual personnel decided to see radar ghosts as not nuclear strikes. I don't think people have really ever changed. It's a fallacy to think as such, or that we somehow became more enlightened and smarter and we're regressing.

It's just amusing that apparently, you decide which forms of bigotry are worthy of condemnation. If your avatar is you, then it fits. In my experience, most pretty women due to socialisation and perhaps genetics have been bullies and base. It's also a matter of principles. I've been taught by my parents not to see any group as better or lesser. Sure, somebody might look hot but that doesn't mean they are of a superior value. Most pretty women think they are. Yes, attractive men also experience pretty privilege. But men and women are socialised differently. Women are still the gatekeepers of sex and relationships. Despite gender equality in the West, women still are viewed and related to in a different manner. We still expect men to be leaders. We expect men to be more stoic and stronger, and attractive and ugly men both have this burden.

Relationships are more than just looks. Dating people shouldn't be about wanting a trophy or an affectation! I'd happily date a 5 over a 10 since 5s are way less inherent drama.

I don't see women having equal rights to me as a threat. I see it as a boon. IMHO, all people of all distinctions should hold the same rights in society. Is that offensive to you? it's not to me. Your points are also based on strawmen and shallow thinking. Nobody says men and women are totally equal. Just worthy of the same legal standing. Also, men like different things in women. You're just projecting. and what you've said doesn't even address what I said.

Yes, I agree what he did wasn't appropriate. BUt she took it to another level, which is unprecedented. There were ways she could have asked Youtube to take his channel down or reprimand him. Also, his critics of her on his channel weren't that bad in the grand scheme. He wasn't being misogynistic, or racist, or otherwise bigoted. One can be angry at something, but still have a very bad reaction to such actions. I dont' see how going to his house, and then essentially doxxing him to the masses, is a legitimate response to her own legitimate frustration or anger. It's a needless escalation.

What in life is absolute? Do humans even have the capacity to conceive of such? It's arrogant to suggest anything is absolute.

Are you British? Given point 14, it may seem so. If that is the case, then hasn't Britain been involved in many conflicts since 1945? Korea, Kenya, Falklands, Malaya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, etc. all count in this regard. As for being manipulated, well that's common in practically all eras. When has it been the time in the past that we were so enlightened and now we've regressed? imho, that seems quite naive. Mass global alliances have existed for well over a century. What you're describing is nothing new.

Humans are aggressive. Thus, war is a reality in any context. Since WW2, there have been many wars. The point may be that the likelihood of WW3 occurring is higher than at the height of the Cold War. Even then, right now, I don't see it as likely.

By contemporary international law, genocide is intentional. The Manifest Destiny of the 19th century, even before the advent of modern conventions on genocide, was an intentional move to kill or displace Native Americans. As this "destiny" was supposedly "manifest", the native peoples living there were just in the way. Either they were shoved into reservations, or they were killed. The extermination of the plains buffalo was a deliberate move to push off native tribes, so by modern international law, if used retrospectively, the American government was committing an actual genocide. There is no intentional push to kill or displace Palestinians. The cases in Rwanda and Bosnia were genocides by current international law, as was Darfur. Even still, you've proven my point. By taking admitted bad acts on one party, it doesn't mean that one side is more right or wrong. Individual bad acts don't or shouldn't undermine the meta-point of the conflict. If one side is "more right or wrong", then does this mean all Palestinians or Israelis should die or be forced to leave? That's not practical, nor ethical. And it just inflames further conflict. I stand by my original points, in that the elemental facet of the entire conflict has never changed. And that true peace can only be achieved if both sides can be achieved if both sides recognise the other's claims and reaching an accord. People who are "pro" each side often have agendas. There are some anti-Semitic "pro-Palestinians" and there are some anti-Arab Israelis. If either had their way, what then? Any chance for a lasting peace diminishes. Such positions are childish, reductive, and often stem from darker and deeper agendas. I look on anybody who is "pro" either side with scepticism and moral disdain.

A monarchy can exist under Islam or in an Islamist state. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are examples of this. I don't see the connection though, in honesty.

What's the point of monarchies in this time of humanity? Rule should be earned by effort. Being born in the right family isn't something that's earned.

Are you saying you're free of either?