Emerald

It's about installing just the opposite of Democracy. The U.S. benefits if they can put a dictator in charge. It keeps the native population from uprising. But of course, they will call these dictators "moderates" and tout democracy. But that's just smoke and mirrors. The real point is to strip democracy and maintain control of the region and its labor and resources through military might.

One thing to understand is that America is an imperialist nation that uses its huge military budget for two primary benefits. Number one, it enables the military industrial complex to have unfettered access to the pot of American tax dollars under the guise of defense. Basically, the more military conflicts there are, the more weapons and fighter jets get made, the more money goes to the industry owners (like Bowing and Honeywell) AND the politicians they pay off. Basically, war is profitable for the political class and the owner class, because the middle class will let them take their tax dollars willingly if it is framed as "defense". Number two, America profits most from goods that are made by people living in third world countries... AND resources found in third world countries. So, in order to keep the populace of said third world countries desperate, they occupy the territory and suppress popular uprisings: both left wing and right wing. And America will come up with narratives that these small third world countries are a genuine threat to American freedom and democracy... despite the fact that we have the biggest military in the world and these countries are powerless to defend themselves. So, with regard to Iraq, the American government used the attacks on 9/11 (which were carried out by SAUDI ARABIAN terrorists and lead by Osama Bin Laden of AFGANISTAN) to justify the war in IRAQ. Number one, Saudi Arabia and Afganistan are NOT Iraq... so there was no reason for us to invade them. Number two, even if the terrorists had been from Iraq (which they weren't), terrorists are typically radicals and don't have anything to do with the government or the people of the place they inhabit. For example, if a bunch of KKK members decided to go fly planes into some buildings in other countries, it wouldn't be the US government's fault, nor would it be the fault of US citizens. So, we had no reason to invade Iraq other that for the US government and US business class's monetary gain... aka lots of oil in Iraq. And the US military has killed over half a million Iraqi citizens... men, women, and children. So, OF COURSE the Iraqis will be upset and angry at America. They have likely experienced the deaths of so many children, brothers, sisters, friends, grandparents, parents, etc. because of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. And even though terrorism is always to be condemned, we must understand the roots of where it comes from. When you leave a population desperate, you will have lots of hurt and anger... which may (in some cases) turn to right wing radicalization and terrorism. So, when these Iraqis are talking about bombing the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, that's obviously something to be condemned and discouraged... but the deeper root cause of that is none other than the corrupt foreign policy enacted by the U.S. Government at the behest of the owners of the Military Industrial Complex and the Fossil Fuel Industry.

I'm not comparing myself out of a sense of insecurity. (Though I do have insecurities and always have) But truly, I do like the way that I look. I think I look just fine. That's why I give myself a 5 or a 6. I had brought up my perception of my looks-number simply so I could answer the question posed by the OP about how important looks are to women and to make my original point that I tend to be attracted to men who are about my looks-match... aka average looking guys. I'm an average looking woman, and I tend to be most likely to become attracted to average looking guys. And men who fall out of my looks-range (in either direction), I am far less likely to develop an attraction to them. So, I'm just as unlikely to not develop an attraction to a 9 as I am unlikely to develop and attraction to a 2. And that's because I'm a 5 or 6. This is how looks tend to matter for me. It's like my subconscious automatically weeds out anyone who isn't in the 4-6 range as potential partners. And I'm also aware that many men are not that picky with looks. And men who are mature and looking for something substantial will seek real chemistry and compatibility. This was not my concern when I made the post.

Here's a picture of me, making my debut down the frozen foods aisle of the Citrus County Walmart after the local pub closes. HELLO WORLD!

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. I suppose it's all relative to the context. If I'm hanging out with a bunch of super-models, I'm a 2 in the looks department. But if I'm at Walmart at 3am in my hometown, I'm a solid 11. But I think 5 or 6 is the most accurate in comparison to other women who are about my age. I'm pretty average or slightly above. But average is good. I can't complain.

Not really. That's not what's appealing about men from my perspective.

Aww, thank you. I appreciate that. It's not even a conscious decision though. I've always been more likely to get the Cupid's-Arrow response towards an average looking guy than I am towards a super model looking guy, though an attraction is fairly uncommon for me either way. Perhaps it's a self-esteem thing. But I think it's more like I'm looking for someone who is congruent to me... but with an ever-so-slight imbalance where I can be the peacock.

A man's looks are an important factor. But there is a range of consideration. Now, I'm an average looking woman... maybe a 5 or 6. So, if a guy is between a 4 and a 6 looks-wise, I can become attracted to him. It doesn't necessarily mean that I will be attracted to him. That has to do with a multitude of other factors. But looks-wise, that's my range of ability to develop an attraction to someone. If he is under a 4, then I am unlikely do develop an attraction to him because his looks would be underneath my range. If he is over a 6, then I am unlikely to develop and attraction to him because he probably won't be excited by me or desire me, and that's a huge turn-off. I like to be the peacock of the relationship. But when an attraction does set in for me, I really appreciate the way a guy looks because of the way I feel about him. A good-looking guy on his own doesn't do much for me. But if an attraction sets in, I just love the way the guy looks. This is always the way it has worked for me.

It's not a survival need like food is. It's a psychological and emotional need. It's not needed to survive, but it is needed to thrive.

Whether a person has had a good childhood or a bad childhood, the need for socialization still exists. And needs must be met. It would be the same as saying, "People who say they don't need food and water usually had good nourishment when growing up. In that case you can become starved and dehydrated and still be nourished. Unfortunately it is not the case for everybody." The point that I'm trying to make here is that human needs are not optional.

Well said... especially with regard to shadow socialization cropping up when the need for healthy socialization isn't acknowledged or met.

"When you are proactive about building a good life for yourself and doing spiritual work, you need other people less and less to complete you. To the extent that your life is not well put together, the loss of people in your life will lead to huge catastrophe and deep suffering -- because you use these people as emotional crutches to avoid doing serious work. If you take this work deep enough, you will not need anyone for your happiness." The reason why I bring this up to you is because of what you'd said... and the message this might send to people. This is especially true for young people who may simply take you at your word and not investigate deeper. It gives the sense that developing social connection is optional, when it is a basic human need. Sure. Certain hardcore spiritual practitioners might become ascetic and forego their human needs for connection and sex... perhaps they may even forego their needs for food and water to a certain extent. And certainly, there is still the capacity to feel happy and fulfilled if a person dedicates their entire life to mastering the ascetic way of life. But by and large, this is terrible advice to give to the average person as they may starve themselves of their own needs and face negative consequences as a result. Most people cannot be fulfilled without their basic human needs being met. So, if they decide that they don't need socialization because "God needs nothing", this just leaves them in a holding pattern in the bottom layers of Maslow's Hierarchy and keeps them from reaching towards the higher levels of self-actualization. Also, with regard to your "emotional tampon" idea... I read what you wrote as a reflection of a personal aversion to intimacy and a subsequent rationalization where you regard that avoidance of intimacy as a symptom of your own higher conscious development so as to avoid the underlying issues with intimacy. Just some food for thought...

It's not an assumption that everyone is like me. In fact, I've been quite a loner for most of my life. But it is a fact that human beings need social interaction. We are a social species. That is the nature of our species. We've evolved that way over hundreds of thousands of years to live in cooperative societies with a strong social fabric. And without that, we face the consequences of being out of our natural element. But if you're used to being out of your element or have experienced negative things in regard to social cohesion, then you may have repressed the aspect of yourself that feels that need.

We can learn to adapt to situations where our needs aren't met if we can adopt a narrative that we don't need those things. But make no mistake, if you haven't had friends for many years, it's taking its toll. Needs are needs. If you don't meet them, there are consequences. You've just adapted to them and learned to selectively focus towards the positive elements of solitude.

Just popping in to say that sex during pregnancy is totally normal and healthy... in case you were under the impression that sex during pregnancy is unsafe.

We don't need to survive. But if you want to survive, you need food and water to do so. Edit: Likewise, we don't need to have our emotional and social needs met. But if you want to thrive, you need healthy and fulfilling social relationships.

It may be true that God needs nothing. (Yet again... in another facet of the infinite gem, it may also be true that God needs everything). But that doesn't mean we stop eating and drinking. We need that to survive... even if God doesn't need to eat, drink, or survive. And it also doesn't mean that we isolate ourselves. Social connection is a human psychological need in the same way that food and water is a human physical need. And when we deny those needs, we suffer the physical and psychological consequences. Maybe Ascetics give up all of that. But it's really not a good idea for the vast majority of people to spiritually bypass human emotional needs. It's wise to be mindful, before giving people advice that minces the absolute paradigm with the relative paradigm and diminishes the realities of the relative paradigm, that there are very real consequences for foregoing our human needs.

You can't disagree with something that is a fact. You can only disagree with opinions. I could say that I disagree that the sky is blue and say that it's green instead. But it doesn't matter if I disagree or not, if it isn't an opinion that I'm disagreeing with. The fact of the matter is that the teacher is the number one root cause of unruly behavior in the classroom. And that's just demonstrably true. The same is true of societal leaders, whether you want to recognize that fact or not.

When a man is financially secure because he has worked hard and smart for his money, it is a very attractive thing. It can denote solidity of character. But if a man just inherited his wealth and never did anything to work for it, it's the opposite of attractive... unless he has cultivated a similar solidity of character and work ethic. Now, if a man is in poverty and he works very hard, there is still solidity of character. It's just that he's employed with someone who pays starvation wages. If this is the case, I may admire the man. But because I've dealt with financial hardship before, I might be hesitant to get involved with him as that will have a direct impact on my quality of life. But what it really boils down to is character and circumstance. Basically, does he have mature and responsible qualities and do his life's circumstances reflect that. Stability of character and circumstance is attractive, and instability of character and circumstance is repellent.

Number one, you didn't address the issue in a meaningful way. You gave ZERO solutions to the problems I mentioned. Also, teachers are 100% responsible if a riot breaks out in their classroom. You would realize this if you've ever been in responsible for any type of crowd control or had any form of responsibility for managing the collective... which social media companies have AND world leaders like Trump have. I was a full time teacher and also substitute teacher for many years. Trust me. If a riot breaks out in a classroom, the teacher is the first place to look. And it is the first place the school administration will look... mostly because they all have been teachers before and know that the teacher is always at the crux of unruly classroom behavior. Individual students are also responsible for the riot in terms of consequences. But the teacher is the main person who's responsible because the teacher is steering the ship and setting the boundaries. So, it means that the teacher isn't doing their job as a moderator of student behavior and allowed things to escalate to the point of riot without intervening. And this is something that you'd know if you'd ever been a teacher before... or in any position of crowd control.

@The Don I've read through the thread and it seems like you're in favor of completely unmoderated social media channels. Full stop. So, my question to you is, 'Without the ability to moderate, how then do social media companies address the very real danger of demagogues and hate groups spreading propaganda that (either directly or indirectly) directs the masses towards acts of violence, hate crimes, insurrection, authoritarianism, and genocide?' This is a very real issue. It isn't just "Words are just words. Get over it snowflake." There are some very real issues with the way large masses of people can be manipulated by the words of influential people. And this has bore out in history time and again. And it isn't just, "Well, then they should face the consequences of their own individual actions." At that point, the damage would already be done and a momentum towards terrible things already started. It must be understood that, if a riot breaks out in a classroom, the teacher IS 100% at fault... even if they didn't make the students riot or tell the students to riot directly. The same is true of those exercising their free speech who end up stoking these societal flames... especially since they know exactly what they're doing. Words put ideas in people's minds. And crafty individuals can (and always have) used their platforms to stoke the flames of hatred and oppression. Now, we have social media channels, where everyone has a platform that can be used to proliferate propaganda and radicalize people towards terrible things. So, how do you propose that we address the problem of propaganda and indirect encouragement of crimes, if not through the moderation of misinformation and propaganda on social media platforms? Also... "just let it happen" is not a valid answer to the question as it doesn't address any of the VERY SERIOUS issues that I mentioned above. How do you maintain your view on 'free speech absolutism', while also addressing these issues in a meaningful way?

Brilliant! That's the way to win the war of optics. The left needs to get better at that.

I do know people that want to abolish the police. To me, it shows a lot of ignorance to how the Criminal Justice System functions and where the corruption actually is. Getting rid of the police is like trying to uproot a tree by getting rid of some of the leaves. The CJS has far more corruption than just the police. It's a whole leviathan of corruption. So, abolishing the police won't do much good to get rid of the corruption. Cops are mere peons of the institution. Abolishing the private prison industry, on the other hand would get rid of so much corruption and would de-incentivize mass incarceration and over-policing. It would also de-incentivize the drug war and other forms of legislations that criminalize non-violent "crimes". And it would de-incentivize mandatory minimum sentences. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the private prison industry has some hand in keeping certain neighborhoods poor and desperate. They need people to commit crimes to live in their prisons so that they can get more taxpayer money. So, poor and crime riddled neighborhood are in their financial interests. But yes, it is not such good optics to say, "defund the police". It guarantees most people will be scared off of something that's actually very reasonable. The left needs to improve its rhetoric.

To be clear, defunding the police makes total sense, as there is too much money going into policing things that don't need to be policed. So, it just means cutting down on over-policing. In fact, quite a lot of CARES act funds were given to police departments, even though they were supposed to be for Covid relief. It's the same argument as cutting the military budget. It's over-inflated, so we should cut it and reallocate those funds to other things. But the private prison industry, won't stand for cutting down on policing because incarceration is good business for them. The more beds they fill in the penitentiary, the more tax payer dollars go into the private prison owner's pocket. The military industrial complex also won't stand for the cutting down on the military budget. As long as they can keep buying off politicians who keep us in perpetual warfare, they can keep making "defense" materials... and keep getting access to the giant pot of taxpayer dollars. Honestly, they could bury all the planes they make... it doesn't matter. The owners of the industry make a ton of money from taxpayers and the politicians get a cut of it. That's all they care about. The perpetual offensive warfare is mostly to make the average person okay with so much of their money going to "defense".

Yeah, there's definitely many factors that have coalesced into this new territory of fuckery. And the media corporations gobble it up, because polarization leads to fanaticism and fanaticism leads to money in their pockets and a very engaged audience.