_NoName_

I mean, I think alittle? Not because of the reasons you think, though, and it’s not really ‘your fault’. More of a pitfall that most people fall into.

TLDR: ditch the apps and try to get out into more social situations through clubs and sports. The ‘right one’ will come along when you are more socially able an mm you’ll likely make friends along the way (genuine friends are WAY more important for staying sane).

So, tinder specifically objectifies and compresses you into a blurb and some photos - it basically cans you for mass consumption. When you finally get ‘bought’, you only get a chat box to communicate unless you actually exchange contacts, and the whole thing’s kind of terrible in general because of that. I’ve tried bumble and it’s pretty much a similar thing.

There’s this thing sometimes called the ‘predator/prey relationship model’ by feminists, and dating apps explicitly reinforce this model, with the only minor change being that bumble required the woman to open the interaction. The predator/prey relationship makes it so that in our society, dudes are expected to go out, find a random woman they fancy, and ‘pounce’ them, essentially. Originally, this was quite literal if you have heard some stories of relationships starting in the 40s and 50s where a couple got together because the guy was just constantly unrelenting. This has shifted to being more egalitarian and consensual but still requires the guy to basically peacock to gain the woman’s approval. Once it officially becomes a relationship, the woman is expected to be submissive while the man is expected to be dominant. It’s a pretty old-fashioned relationship style that still affects modern dating today. Some folks even still subscribe to it.

The better model that I think is more natural is to just go out and find new friends and groups I can participate in. This way, anyone you might date sees you in more context. You get more practice being social, which can be helpful in actually getting someone to become attracted to you, at which point they might actually start putting in effort.

I don’t see much problem with this. It’s one thing to advocate for everyone having greater freedoms to form non-heteronormative-style relationships, and an entire other thing to necessarily want that for yourself. That’s what Feminism is about after all, a broadening of accepted lifestyles and freedoms - not necessarily a complete shift to a paradigm that prohibits the previous one. In this kind of case, it just sounds like you are discovering up front that you two are not seeking the same type of relationship, which is good to find out early.

It’s kind of like advocating for a bike lane in your city despite you not biking and having no interest in biking. I don’t think you’re a hypocrite for not using freedoms you advocate for.

My understanding is that infant labiaplasty and other female genital cosmetic surgeries are pretty common as well in western countries. Luckily there is a growing protest to these practices on ethical grounds, since they’re all medically unnecessary surgeries performed on babies that can’t consent to it.

This journal publication seems to put it into perspective decently. It also points out some of the racist hypocrasy surrounding it, like how we classify these actions being done by non-western cultures as ‘mutilation’ which is unlawful, while classifying ones aligned with our own culture as ‘cosmetic’ and still allow them.

Bought 5 foam swords for $3 each. Good purchase.

I imagine it’s a “negative liberty vs positive liberty” conundrum.

American libertarianism seems to consistently skew towards negative liberty, which is complete autonomy to anything but without any power or resources. I believe this predilection came from Ayn Rand and Reaganism, and that It now manifests mostly as anarchocapitalist sentiments.

I’m a bigger fan of positive liberty - possessing the resources and power to do what you desire within a constrained system.

Unfortunately we live in a society which provides neither. The amazing results of constant compromise.

Listened to the ‘If Books Could Kill’ episode on ‘Going Infinite’ by Michael Lewis. Despite Lewis being a blind fan of Sam Bankman-Fried, he makes him sound like an absolute sociopath. I think that sure Sam might’ve been the fall guy and some other dudes should be in jail too, but I also think that he absolutely has some serious mental problems and probably shouldn’t be allowed to run a business ever again.

Her right hand on the table is left

I read Dune years ago now and have only seen part 1. I may misremember the book some and that may be affecting my personal feelings of it but I’ll give my input nonetheless.

Pretty much, I feel Villeneuve and his team have done the most faithful depiction of the first part of the book to date, in terms of matching mood and description of the spaces, as well as the behaviors exhibited by characters. the scenes that really drove this home for me were the hunter seeker in Paul’s chamber and Jessica’s interaction with Shadout Mapes. Unfortunately much of the relevant exposition which explains the details of the situation are missing, since they’re internal monologues of Paul and Jessica.

I can’t blame Chalamet for his acting here. Paul shows Jack shit in the books and you mostly get what he’s thinking and feeling, once again, from his thoughts. In this case, Chalamet is being pretty faithful to Paul’s demeanor in the books - whether he means to or not. I do remember him being alittle more expressive in the second part of the book, so it’ll be interesting for me to see if that comes across in part 2.

I don’t think Navalny believed any resistance would be mounted for him - he might have had hope but I don’t think he counted on anything. I think he chose to go back knowing he would likely die. He chose to be a martyr to maximize the effect he’d have.

Sounds like the run-of-the-mill child labour you see across the US (I consistently did this for my dad till probably about 17).

Not to forget the other type, which is migrant children working in factories illegally.

RIGHT AWAY, COME AWAY! RIGHT AWAY, Come away!

More important, some quick googling says that the average per-capita income for 1938 was $515 (new york per-capita was $822, Mississippi was $205), which another search says was just under $11k. That car would cost an atomic family close to 2 years’ wages.

Yeah, I pulled open those clips from @zerfuffle and had an “oh damn” moment. It sounds identical.

Something that occurs to me that I can’t really get out of my head is perhaps Israel using it’s iron dome system to intercept missiles so that the shrapnel lands inside Gaza. I don’t know much about the iron dome system, nor what the alternatives to making missile shrapnel fall on civilians are.

If anyone with more knowledge about these things could weigh in, I’d appreciate it.

Alright, gonna be a skeptic.

We’re seeing an Israeli news source followed by an IDF statement with IDF evidence, so a conflict of interest does exist with these sources, though that doesn’t mean either is lying. That being said, if Israel did deliberately target a hospital in Gaza with as many eyes on Gaza as there are, that’d be a really fucking stupid move. At the same time, If they did, lying and completely fabricating everything is in their highest interest. At minimum, though, I think that any trustworthiness one would associate with journalists or military Intel be thrown out, and the evidence be viewed with skepticism

There is also some oppositely damning evidence in circulation. GeoConfirmed apparently did their own locating of where the video occurred, and - if accurate - from the videos perspective, the missile was moving northwest, from the direction of Israel. They are also A third party in this, though, so their bias is not immediately determinable from this one tweet, nor can the factuality be easily confirmed.

We’re still in the fog of war, and simultaneously a war for our minds and support is being waged. I am going to wait for more information from more parties to arrive.

EDIT: I previously stated the tweet I linked claimed the missile was moving north east, which it doesn’t - that’s my misphrasing. The tweet I linked specifically repeats the falling shrapnel story - though the evidence they show shows the camera looking southeast, with the missile coming from said direction towards the camera. I’ve rewritten it to be more clear.