eek04


























  1. > Evolutionary psychology is wrong on many things. At the end of the day, it's all just say-so stories. And they make no sense here too: Why would women care about "resources" for "biological" reasons? The only biological thing that would matter for good offspring would be good genes,

  2. It's not the lack of sex that's the problem, it's the lack of intimacy. Women in the 18-25 age have a larger proportion of virgins than men of the same age range, but they rarely turn into incels because they receive intimacy from female friendships.

  3. Not just lack of intimacy - lack of *offers* of intimacy, and the feeling of personal value you get from that. I expect very few young women feel "I couldn't get sex if I tried except by paying for it", while many young men feel that way.

  4. The reason your life isn't comfortable on a combined 70k salary has nothing to do with the woman getting a council house and social welfare and has everything to do with the government over the past 2 decades, modern business practices that have caused massive inflation and stagnant wages. We're dealing with a housing crisis because of vulture funds and multi millionare run construction companies that wont build anything without 800% profit margins and nothing makes those groups happier than seeing a lower income family getting pissed off at someone less fortunate than them instead of being angry at the real culprits of Irish society.

  5. Capitalists are just going to tell you that this is already happening because the profit motive causes people to want to be useful to others in order to sell services and make money so the profit motive is already causing people to try to be useful to each other, which will include climate change goals as weighed against other goals.

  6. I am a capitalist (social democrat).

  7. The greater issue is with how the market is blind to indirect benefit. Fields like mathematics and physics are responsible for the vast vast majority of the wealth we have today and yet are paid chump change and are constantly underfunded. They are basically reliant on donations to keep going.

  8. As somebody that identify on the capitalist side of the spectrum (social democrat): There absolutely exist market failures, and what you call "indirect benefits" (positive externalities in economics-speak) is one of the ways that we get market failures. We need to use regulation, taxes and subsidies to correct for these. That's why we need a government, not exclusively market forces.

  9. That's not a bad idea, though I imagine it's subject to some of the same issues. Private attorneys are appointed in a similar fashion all over the US as conflict counsel (where the PD has a conflict and can't take a case, e.g., co-defendants), and in some jurisdictions, assigning cases to private attorneys is the norm (i.e., no PD office). Usually the attorney appointed is luck of the draw, though, because they want cases distributed evenly. Most people have no idea how to tell a good attorney from a bad one, anyway, but I'm sure the system you describe gives the defendant a feeling of greater control, and encourages more competition.

  10. The lawyers are paid by the hour (

  11. Interesting stuff! I was aware it was civil law, along with most of the world, but I honestly don't really get what the practice of law, particularly criminal law, looks like in civil law countries. I appreciate the insight.

  12. Be warned: I'm not a lawyer, just an interested lay person.

  13. In my circle of friends, there was a woman who hung out with us and we were talking about doing laundry. She asked all the guys in the group how we got our skid marks out of our underwear. We were all confused and told her we didn't have shit stains on our underwear because we wipe our ass properly.

  14. No, but it is also irrelevant to your argument that there aren't organizations denying help to men and boys - they deny help to men and boys, just pointing them off elsewhere.

  15. I pointed at an organization that says they don't take men. You pointed at a page where they point men at other organizations. I consider those two pages sufficient proof that they don't take men.

  16. It will make people poorer, and you're not willing to say how much poorer you think it is OK to make them for the so called "moral" benefits.

  17. I love that you think MEDIAN pay won't go up under socialism. Argue about the average pay and maybe you'd have a point, but talking purely about pay and nothing about costs, is beyond stupid. Producing less might result in the ability to consume more. The math works just fine, because the owning class won't be sucking the place dry.

  18. 100%, one of my old therapist said the #1 thing that makes therapy effective is the relationship between the therapist/patient.

  19. What I found most worrying/interesting in this discussion was

  20. I never said we should remove it. I said we should change it and only apply to online companies that allow free speech that is not restricted by governments and use algorithms neutrally.

  21. That's going to be entirely open to spam. It will also almost immediately trigger the creation of more laws, as you're going to see the mainstream sites overrun by lots of content society don't want as mainstream but that hasn't been outlawed. And these laws would vary by country (and possibly state).

  22. I don't see a significant difference between C's macro system and any belonging to other languages.

  23. I can only be broad, because it’s too much detail and I only remember the broad strokes. Also I should mention that Britain (where am familiar with the economic history of) is something of a poster child of failed state owned businesses (and the rapid privatisation of them). Norway, for instance is quite successful with its SOEs, don’t ask me why. I assume they give them enough autonomy to operate.

  24. How come the person actually doing the work and providing the service or good seems to be rewarded the least? It just seems backwards the invisible man gets to put his hand in the cookie jar first.

  25. Welcome to the beautiful world of capitalism. What you just described is the very essence of the economic system we live in. As people have pointed out, it stimulates innovation, at least for consumer goods and services, and economic growth, through speculation and competition. As for the downsides, there’s plenty of comprehensive litterature out there. You seem to have intuitively figured out one of the main ones.

  26. Except that he's wrong. 89% of the pre-wage profit goes to workers. (Number from the last time I calculated, ~3-4 years old data.)

  27. > How come the person actually doing the work and providing the service or good seems to be rewarded the least?

  28. "This little piggy went to market" isn't about shopping! Finally realized that much too late.

  29. I only realized that when you wrote this.

  30. I tried that and still took longer, it was horrifying💀

  31. I'll give some tricks which help a bit (but nothing completely solves this). They're mixed between project-based and personal-time based - the project based can also be applied to personal time, though it is probably easiest to just do that for a while (since it's a fair bit of overhead compared to the size of personal tasks).

  32. Leftists have a generally materialist view of history and conservatives a generally idealist one.

  33. Leftists have a very clearly idealist view of everything. They believe that just because they can imagine an ideal that ideal can exist, even though the material fact is that when other leftists have tried to implement it in the past the almost universal outcome is something completely different than the current leftist want.

  34. My dude has zero idea about continental philosophy and is trying to weigh in on it like an expert.

  35. I just refuse to accept the made-up "make us sound good" propaganda interpretation of words that socialists use.

  36. Regarding your point about mental illness making it not easy, I would consider that as one of the caveats that I mentioned.

  37. There's two bits that are missing from this:

  38. Foreign exchange is a market. The central bank, when it does that, is attempting to stabilise their own currency. Buying dollars with rupees expands the supply of rupees in the FX market and therefore reduces the price of the rupee, counter-acting the rupee's appreciation.

  39. And at the same time gets the central bank dollars which they can use later to buy rupees if they want to increase the price (ie, to stabilize in the other direction.) Or transfer to the government to buy other products.

  40. Safe? Sure. It may or may not taste OK; the main problem is that it could go rancid.

  41. Since your text looked somewhat uncertain and curious: If you want to look at various bits about how to change people's beliefs, changingminds.org is the best reference site I know. If you want something more structured on influence than changingminds.org, I can also recommend Steve's Primer of Influence and Persuasion for just getting background. It was expanded to book length but I think the shorter free online version is actually better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin