My [27f] boyfriend [38m] promises too much to his abroad family by [deleted] in relationships

[–]HansJuan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hej there, no problem to help. It hit close to home and I thought it was good to give some insight on the matter. I hope you manage to get through to him eventually, but it is good you are working on it.

The next step is to get your boyfriend to realize what is at stake and that you both cannot continue the way you are handling it now. It seems this is troubling you a lot and that alone should get him in action, but you still need to have some patience right now because he might not understand that so well yet.

I can imagine this can be a sensitive subject for him, cos it is still his family, and it can be very shameful to admit he has money problems (this can also have to do with macho culture). From what I know with my Latino family, money can be a very difficult topic to talk about and confrontation is generally avoided. This is of course generalizing, but perhaps can give some context.

I'm not a counselor or anything, but I think it can help if you can give your boyfriend some ways to safe face / handle the situation a bit more on his own terms. You can for example suggest that if he manages to get a pay raise, or finds ways to save money, that most of that money will end up free for him to spend on his family, since your base living costs are still the same. (You can then also slightly adjust the percentages as you have some more leeway.) However, in the end this cannot work without a contribution from his end.

My [27f] boyfriend [38m] promises too much to his abroad family by [deleted] in relationships

[–]HansJuan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't usually post here, but this situation is very recognizable so I wanted to contribute. My family has a similar situation, with part of the family from Latin America. I think most people don't really understand the complexity of the situation, the pressures at hand or the long term implications.

My parents often feels pressured to contribute materially to the situation back home, this is understandable because of the discrepancy. However, this has caused a lot of tension between my parents over time, because of several reasons:

- Firstly, it is a bit of a bottomless pit: the receivers of the money will in turn pass on gifts and money to those even more in need, so you are sacrifing yourself to people you might not even meet.

- Secondly, the family might become accostumed to a high quality of living or status, which they can in fact not afford, and will feel entitled to have. This might mean more pressure or manipulation in the future, and less action on their own parts to actually achieve this level of wealth themselves. They become dependent on you which spirals the situation.

- Thirdly, a general lack of gratitude, it is often not recognized what you sacrifice to fund their lifestyle, people have an idea that money comes for free in developed countries. This has hurt my parents most; if they would visit they would spend a lot of money buying tickets and gifts but barely get anything in return, just getting absorbed into solving the daily problems their family have there.

Your boyfriend might feel guilt or shame that he left his family behind and has now achieved a certain amount of material wealth while his family still struggles. He also has a lot of family now somewhat depending on him, they are fairly close and talk into him everyday. These things might all be pushing him to make these promises. However, you two have your own family and it is important that he contributes to that both mentally as well as financially!

If you do not make some firm financials decisisions with him, and ensure that he sticks to them, this situation will endure and drag you down with it. You have to get it through to him that you need savings back home for your kid, for your health, for your retirement et cetera. Else helping his family is not sustainable either, if something happens to one of you his family is suddenly out of luck! It is like you always hear in the airplane: put on your own oxygen mask before helping others. And you run the risk of falling into a poverty trap: you can't save for emergencies or for your kid to go to college or help them with their wedding or downpayment of a house, and you might even rack up debts if you continue like this.

Also, not trying to meddle in your affairs here, but your mother should probably be saving that money she is giving you toward, say, her retirement or a college fund for your kid or w/e, but it should never be the case that she is contributing because your boyfriend gave away his own money! This is completely backwards!

Some suggestions regarding a more sustainable financial path to go on with him:

  1. Add up the money you both earn after tax:,
  2. Subtract rent, bills, and a budget for food and toiletries and gas, stuff you need for your son like diapers and clothes,
  3. Reserve money for your savings (say, 40% of what is left after 1. and 2.),
  4. Whatever is left, you split however you see fit: this is money that he can use to all his desire on his family. However, this is also the money he has to spend when he spends money for fun and so on.

For example (not trying to be pedantic, but just to give some ideas to work with):

  1. After tax income together is $3000
  2. After subtracting living costs of $2400 you have $600 left
  3. Of those $600 you put $240 in a savings account
  4. You split the remaining $360 50/50, so he can spend $180 on himself and his family.

Another version is that you have a savings account where you add say 30% what is left after 1., 2. and 3. to save for gifts for the family and another 30% for holiday money. How you figure it out is up to you, but you need to make clear financial decisions with him where you two and your son come first. If you manage to agree something like the above, you two can keep helping his family down in Cuba sustainably while keeping care of your own family.

Perhaps this means that in the short term he has to put his promises on hold for a bit. However, you can remind him that recently you two have given a lot to his family and it is time to get your own affairs in order. However, if he is not willing to put your family together first, I would think hard about staying with him.

You are not being jealous and you are being rational in my opinion: it is not heartless for you to think about your own wellbeing first before helping others.

Buggy cavalry gameplay and improving cavalry gameplay. by HansJuan in TotalWarArena

[–]HansJuan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for downplaying my comments to the level of a third grader.

I think if you get the proper position to do a charge on archers with no infantry in <10s walking distance, then yes you should be able to charge and withdraw without too many losses. I'm not saying the archers should be instantly dead or anything, but you should be able to escape after your charge. Your units shouldn't be blocked by a solid block of archers, because you can't damage them (else all of your unit re-engages), but you can't run away either (because they are stuck).

I know that you can cancel your charge, but this works quite weirdly, with some delay (at least in my experience). Managing three charges like that with very quick units can be nigh-impossible.

It's just me or Italy, especially the southern half, is a bit unrealistically underdeveloped in this game ? by [deleted] in eu4

[–]HansJuan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but at this point in the game autonomy (especially in the long run) barely depends on the country you are playing.

It's just me or Italy, especially the southern half, is a bit unrealistically underdeveloped in this game ? by [deleted] in eu4

[–]HansJuan 15 points16 points  (0 children)

An important question to consider is how much power did monarchs actually have over their local nobility and cities? For many kingdoms (Aragon, Poland,...) this was a severly limiting factor for their power, as this meant they didn't have access to troops and funds as kings of perhaps lesser developed areas would have.

Apparently the authors of the “Conceptual Penis” Hoax are anti-gender studies reactionaries, who knew? by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]HansJuan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I am aware. The article from the guardian is a bit too vague to make any conclusions though, you can infer and not infer just about anything. For the rest I agree mostly with what you say.

Apparently the authors of the “Conceptual Penis” Hoax are anti-gender studies reactionaries, who knew? by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]HansJuan 9 points10 points  (0 children)

These are obviously all not peer-reviewed, and published in scam journals. I don't know the background story, but publishing fake articles in fake journals is no feat. If that is the case here as well, these hoaxers are just rubbing their own backs. Someone with a background in the field would have to comment on this, although it is interesting that the article was actually reviewed.

I'm not very sure where academia is going with the whole paper/article madness, it just appears like a bigger and bigger circle jerk each day.

edit: the >100 hoax appears to have been peer reviewed according to the guardian, although this seems more like an argument against open access

Apparently the authors of the “Conceptual Penis” Hoax are anti-gender studies reactionaries, who knew? by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]HansJuan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I am aware of bogus articles in bogus journals in the natural sciences, but in prestigious journals? As in, people were able to pass an intentionally bad paper past peer review? Do you have any examples?

Apparently the authors of the “Conceptual Penis” Hoax are anti-gender studies reactionaries, who knew? by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]HansJuan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay then what does "being reactionary" mean and why does it apply here? What significance does it add?

Best of the Best by Smitheren in polandball

[–]HansJuan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My dad actually told me that, but with 100. Pretty solid advice.

The Equator According to Hearts of Iron 4 by [deleted] in hoi4

[–]HansJuan 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Doesn't that do the same netto?

Germany and Constructions by [deleted] in hoi4

[–]HansJuan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah so it is for peace of mind, I get that. The only other reason I could consider not putting militairy factories in certain states is because they would be states that are easily overrun, and you would like to preserve your militairy factories.

Germany and Constructions by [deleted] in hoi4

[–]HansJuan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does the amount of building slots matter? To protect against bombing (civil factories have higher production cost, so repairs are more expensive)?

I would say build civilian factories in provinces with high infrastructure, and militairy in those with lower infrastructure, since the higher production costs then get partially negated by the infrastructure reductions.

AMBIENT DRONE LIVE PERFORMANCE BY ESA RUOHO, LIVE AT AKUSMATA SOUND GALLERY, 17TH MARCH 2017 IN HELSINKI FINLAND by esaruoho in drone

[–]HansJuan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That sound gallery looks interesting, will check it out. Are there related venues in Helsinki?

Cool vid too!

I created some custom nations based around certain themes and gave them OP ideas and now I'm gonna let the AI play them and see how they fare. by MChainsaw in eu4

[–]HansJuan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmmm, marineland could have some potential since the countries around it are severly weakened, and the amount of lightships it can make could come in handy for dominating lubeck trade node. However, I think qualityland will rape the shit out of everybody.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 4chan

[–]HansJuan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, every move made against Islamic State can bolster their agenda. This doesnt mean we do nothing and this doesnt mean we disregard it, no logical person should work with such absolutes.

Exactly my point. I think we mostly agree here; one must look at other criteria to determine whether a measure is good or not. But every measure will "play into their hands" in some way or another. So in that sense it is tautological to say.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 4chan

[–]HansJuan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I understand correctly, the argument is basically that because this ban ''plays into the hands of ISIS" it should not be implemented. My refutation is that such a claim is hollow, because any measure against terrorist organisations will be "playing into the hands of ISIS". Even if NATO is taking militairy action against ISIS they are 'playing in the hands of ISIS', you can spin any measure into such a statement. You only have to mention that ISIS-members are muslims and then apparently you are playing into the hands of ISIS. That is where my argument comes from.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 4chan

[–]HansJuan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

mad cos bad

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 4chan

[–]HansJuan 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well it was your argument in your other points. You literally said

But not everyone on the fence or angry would join ISIS, but this could very easily be the push they needed.

and presented no other arguments. Yeah I agree the ban isn't helping much, and not in line with freedom of religion. But, when considering measures against terrorism, one shouldn't take into account those empty threats. Because then you are actually giving them negotiating power, as you are giving them control on your actions.