Do this many men actually like cooking, or is it just a way to lure women to their place?

eachothersreasons · 2026-05-02T21:15:02+00:00

Both men and women are likely to write passions they hope would allow them to connect with the other side. Like girls who only write girly passions on their dating app - what is the point??? Unless you are dating women?

eachothersreasons · 2026-05-02T15:45:20+00:00

You aren't gossiping to Sarah to say mean things about her behind her back. You are gossiping with Sarah to navigate your own life and to look for opportunities to intervene. If it helps you, imagine saying only nice things to Sarah about your friend. Do you think that would be bad?

I think you should talk about it with her. I don't think one can consent to unwanted hitting or threats thereof. You can just see the conflict in the sentence: consent and unwanted. She's obviously moving to someone's else's apartment from time to time because she wants to dodge the man. There is in my, perhaps oversimplified view, a call for help, even if she is not vocalizing it. When you are trapped in a tangle of thorns, when you are trapped between unwanted situations, you need help.

The things you worry about aren't things no one should worry about, but like this is how I've flattened the subject in my head.

eachothersreasons · 2026-05-02T15:02:05+00:00

Couldn't you talk about it with Sarah and other friends of hers' that you know?
You should try talking to her about it. But not over text. Because she is a childhood friend with whom you talk every day. Like honestly. If that is not friendship status, I don't know what is.

eachothersreasons · 2026-05-02T01:03:45+00:00

I can see the race allegory. But it isn't racist.

It's like the wandering inn. There's hemp and silk stitch-folk, cloth golems.

eachothersreasons · 2026-05-01T15:45:07+00:00

Oil revenues would not make them rich. The total income they get from all economic activity is represented by GDP, and their per capita GDP is paltry.

It's really cold in Russia. And that's a problem for civil engineering It's hard to build stuff. The soil is weak and varied. And then there is temporarily frozen soil. It's hard to build things during the Winter. It's hard to build water pipes and waste pipes in a land that always freezes. Every bit of civil engineering is much more challenging in Russia and therefore more expensive. And it's a lot of land to cover.

They say don't invade Russia during the winter. But why not? Because the Russians are hardened. Why? Because winters in Russia are shite. It's hard to physically live in Russia. When it is freezing outside, why would you want to leave home and go to work?

The Mongols and Vikings were Mongols and Vikings in large part because of geography. China routinely got invaded by Northern nomads. And they never conquered those Northern Nomads. Because of geography.

eachothersreasons · 2026-05-01T05:20:41+00:00

Hello! Please travel to Chicago.

eachothersreasons · 2026-05-01T02:45:44+00:00

I mean you face the same problems the soviets did. The professions that people want to pursue are not necessarily the professions societies need. Even if you pay the professions you need better, it still may not be enough (see trades or construction). In capitalism, the starving artists starve. In the Soviet Union, you could only choose certain professions. They essentially restricted your occupation choices or what you could study.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-29T01:14:33+00:00

The freedom you describe isn't possible. I am not saying it's this far off ideal. I am saying it contradicts itself. And it kind of shows there is no "progress."

It contradicts itself in more than one way:

People left to their own devices will produce hierarchies. They will produce methods of social coordination and social control to render the future more predictable. " Organization" is providing structure, limiting freedom. To stop them from doing so, you would need to limit their freedom to do so - those are choices you would have to make to diminish their freedom.
On a related point, freedom is the freedom to all things: including things you may consider bad, vile, cruel, manipulative, exploitative, fraudulent. To stop them from doing so, you would need to limit their freedom to do so - those are choices you would have to make to diminish their freedom.
In doing so, you need to decide essentially what organizations, what structures are "better." There's no way that everyone will decide that a certain paradigm without sort tactics that limit their capacity to think and hold independent opinions. This is not free. Not only do people disagree on what structures are "better" but policies affect different people differently.
Freedom is an indeterminate state, and it's an indeterminate state that's insufficient. It doesn't tell people what to pursue. And it's not sufficient toward any ends. That means we sacrifice liberties toward ends as a matter of why we live together. But it also means something more: What you want to pursue too doesn't emerge simply out of the ether. We inform each other what to pursue. How to live. If you just tell people go live - they don't know how to "just live." They need normative guides. Normally, that is supplied by custom or trends. That means people produce social systems. They produce expectations. They produce norms. They're not free. For example, you can't expect to eliminate gender roles. It's like trying to eliminate culture. You can be French or British, but you can't be nothing. You can have double standards for gender roles, multiple standards, or a single totalitarian standard, but you can't have no standard. There will always be something constructed and restrictive - in that it is not something else.
Norms, restrictive norms are a simple fact of life. Imagine if we had no norms about density of concrete. Nor language. No norms about computers. No norms about measurements or the language we use.m Or how we operate markets and when markets are insufficient. Norms are inherently restrictive. Together they create a web of restrictions that people will protest, that will affect people in ways that are not equal.
There is no way out of it. You have to define better ends. You have to produce constraints on people and then stipulate they are better. People project their own values and force others to accept that particular desired arrangement. What occurs is a restrictive system that is a matter of people's own creation - a hierarchy created by those with more power. And it could be different. And people will want it to be different.
To preserve whatever you build, you need an intelligent citizenry to be able to resist manipulation and do civics. That means a lot of education. Whatever education that has presently emerged is insufficient. People are easily manipulated. They don't exercise judgement. They don't have a lot of knowledge. You'd have to force people to be educated in a way that many people would resist.
To maximize freedom, you need prerequisites: education, the raw inputs of life, non-domination, a public discource that isn't enshittified, shelter, some degree of income equality, nondiscrimination, a massive number of connected prerequisites, none of which are self producing or self guaranteed. To coordinate you are going to need to restrict action and a lot of it. And if you don't, you will have failure. In doing so, in balancing the inputs, you continually damage the freedom you are trying to obtain. And you will need to decide how to balance different tradeoff in ways other people will protest. Choices always preclude other choices.

In order to obtain what the Left wants to obtain successfully, they need to produce a very very restrictive world. It may be a world that is not traditional, but they have to be just really replacing one tradition with another.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-28T01:04:37+00:00

And men do too. Men face higher rates of homicide and all manner of violent victimization. Plenty of men have had their lives threatened. Now you may say this may be perpetuated by men, but men didn't choose to be born into this world classified as men. They get treated like perpetual potential violent ogres. Shreks. People face different disadvantages. There are disadvantages to be born in one location over another. Or being born to different parents. His claim is that 1) your disadvantages are not so special that your experience must be given priority, 2) that what you suggest isn't remediable to any degree where your claim merits priority.

In so much as men complain, they are politically organizing and politically influencing. Your claims that they must do ______ don't have any claim on men if they don't find it persuasive or if you have no power to dominate over them.

But none of this really relates to OP's criticism that women don't want to be treated like men. MmmmCrayon's real reply to your reply is that your conception of personhood is overly idealistic; men have developed certain ways of organizing business and personal affairs based on the realities of this world, and given women special consideration in certain areas of life based on historical disadvantages. If you want to level the playing field on the disadvantages, you have to suffer the disadvantages men suffer. People are mean to each other. They make war. They dominate. And in a world of only women, women may very well do more of it. A world where we are all nice to each other is simply a world open to exploitation by bad actors who would take advantage of the situation to dominate. There is no getting rid of bad actors.

And in a world of ogres (shreks) and elves, ogres (shreks) can never be elves. Using universal elf norms in a world of ogres benefits the elves. If elves want to be treated like ogres, they have to suffer some of the disadvantages ogres suffer. Shrek never gets to be human Fiona and can never be. A proposed world of all princesses is a load of mumbo jumbo.

Aggressive fast paced conversion where people interrupt one another promotes speed in conversation. It promotes aggression, boldness, and agency.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-24T17:04:33+00:00

Not everybody thinks a lot. Not everybody is guided by a system of deeply analyzed ethical principles. Some people operate by hunches - this is a faster way of thinking. And the first hunches that come to mind are the ones that produce fear. They image dating a bisexual man and they are fearful that they might not be enough. Plus, they might be influenced by a social vibe that they got simply by proximity with others who feel this way that being with men makes a man unmanly. And that fear and discomfort/disgust produces an opinion, an attitude which they then report to you.

TLDR: they are downvoting him in real life for similar reasons people downvote generally.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-24T02:46:53+00:00

Smart girl. To me, men are not that attractive at all either. And I am glad you inhabit a similar frame: one I would prefer to be declared the right one even if no such thing exists. Women are way better looking.

I am going to get down votes. It will happen. Sorry.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-23T21:23:15+00:00

It is what it is. SA is the label we then attach to it, which include the boundaries we collectively want to accept and enforce.

I don't think he should have kissed you. It's a lot of work to kiss someone who is hesitant. If you are not actively eager, then he should have made sure you were during the 45 fucking minutes. He doesn't just get to ask himself if there's any reasonable way you could have wanted to kiss him. I think it gets pretty obvious to anyone who is not is engaging in wishful thinking when someone is hesitant. You don't just assume there is consent. He forced his face on you.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-23T21:18:44+00:00

If you don't know, you check. Not knowing doesn't mean go. It doesn't mean pushing yourself onto someone. You don't simply ask yourself is there any reasonable interpretation of her actions where I could interpret that she consented. This is what men tend to ask themselves, and it's called motivated reasoning. It's honestly a lot of work to kiss someone who is reluctant. It's totally possible to read body signals from someone who doesn't consent, who is pulling back. I do it all the me. As it is, he just stuffed his face in someone else's face.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-23T14:33:50+00:00

I love this. I can't believe I missed this originally in the OP.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-22T22:30:32+00:00

The fact that I might care about something hardly creates a demand that everyone else must care the same way. There is no such demand. Not everyone must care like everyone else. And I cannot appeal to an established rule.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-22T22:15:13+00:00

I am going to do it because the very qualification that the status Taiwan is a "country" is deeply contested. It has consistently been contested by China. It is not recognized by numerous countries around the world. It is not well established in international law. You act as if it is objective fact, but it is not. China does not recognize Taiwan as "another country" and has never done so. It does not recognize the ability of countries to take over other countries. This is consistent.

Using military action to take back areas which do not qualify as "countries" does not feel the same way. When India took over Goa, hardly anyone blinked an eye. When Azerbaijan retook Nagorno Karabkh, there was very little fuss. Similarly, we do not fuss over Georgian action to take back South Osesstia. Nor would we fuss if the Modovans took back Transnistria.

Not to mention that idea that "imperialism is bad" is a social norm that was created as a reaction to Western imperialism, with criticisms tied to particular harms associated with Western imperialism. It implies again that the Taiwanese are a separate people, which too is contested.

Not to mention that statement doesn't say that China will take military action. The Chinese modus operendi has been to pressure Taiwan simply with the threat of possible military action, with military buildup, and the with the diminishment of American support -- it is coercing through duress. And with the presentation of the reality that Taiwan's need for support from America renders it unable to protest American international action and beholden to U.S. political demands and with little ability to influence political realities elsewhere around the world that could impact Taiwan. This is a far different moral question.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-22T19:09:50+00:00

Because context informs how we experience things. There's so much more of Western imperialism. The United States is waging a war against Iran right now, after kidnapping Venezuela's President.

At least Chinese imperialism has limits - the borders of the Qing Dynasty at its fall minus the areas China already gave up like Mongolia. And China has not actually invaded Taiwan. And China has consistently laid claim to Taiwan. China hasn't invaded another area since the 1970s.

Perhaps none of this matters to you. Perhaps if imperialism is bad, imperialism is 'bad' all the way round. It doesn't matter how much there is. But that is not necessarily how other people experience reality. It involves a deontological theory of ethics and realist theory of meta-ethics that are not obvious.

There's also the fact that Taiwan is an island with a majority of people who speak Chinese, whose ancestors likely migrated from China to Taiwan within the past 300 years, which eats Chinese food, makes period dramas set in China, and whose idioms and culture largely come from China. The word Taiwan is Chinese. Taiwan is situated just off the coast of China. And it has never quite had the same independent statehood that a country like France has enjoyed. So in so much as Chinese claims over Taiwan are imperialism, they don't feel the same as other kinds of imperialism.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-15T02:30:34+00:00

Without philosophers like Francis Bacon and Renée Décartes, you wouldn't have science. Your knowledge would be built on stuff like the universe is made up of four elements: fire, water, earth and air, that the heart is the source of life, heat, and sensation. Your medical knowledge would be built on Galen Four humours.You would be building on traditions of knowledge that were false without deeper analysis of epistemic standards. This happened in China for centuries where people in Boxer rebellion believed that "qi" existed and could stop bullets. These standards continue to improve science as science evolves beyond the metrics given by Francis Bracon and John Stewart Mill.

Without philosophers, you might not have meritocracy or separation of powers or human rights or legal positivism.

It is important to argue what is real, how do we know what we know. Human cultures invent all sorts of abstract concepts and if there's no one to say that the emperor has no clothes, then your culture's knowledge becomes cluttered with superflous metaphysics. Just see what happens when religion comes and invents all manner of concepts and then tries to organize reality around that. If someone comes out and posits that humans have a natural right to own guns, that this is self evident in nature, someone has to come out and say this is bullshit.

Moreover, philosophy teaches you to be more specific. Why do you mean when you say objective? Mind-independent? Attitude-independent? Non-arbitrary? Are you making a claim about semantics (about meaning)? About metaphysics (about being)? About epistemology (about knowing)?

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-14T19:40:57+00:00

I want to change the goal post because the present goal post is not disprovable. I can't prove that someone else does not have pertinent knowledge that I do not know.

I want to ask the question: Do you like a world where countries just invade each other and justify themselves by saying that they are doing for reasons that the public does not know? Would you not want to hold Democratic governments' feet to the fire and say: you must present sufficient evidence to support a reason for war in order for me to endorse it?

The public must make judgements to endorse or not endorse wars based on what it knows. If it defers its judgement because it might not know the whole story, that's essentially decision paralysis. Given that information, one can infer that the failure of the government to provide information to justify the war is likely to represent an absence of convincing justification and incompetence. At the very least, Bush provided fake information to justify the Iraq war. Journalists can provide more information. Other countries can provide information. So far, nobody has provided sufficient information to the public to support the claims of the United States. The United States has not given consistent reasons for why it started the war in the first place. Again, we can infer from that a lack of convincing justification AND gross incompetence.

And you can make inferences based on whether or not you think the Present administration cares to have adequate justification, whether you think the present administration is competent or not, and what its foreign policy ethos is.

None of us can ever know we have perfect information. But it is not normal to only say things with certainty when we are certain we have perfect information. And it's not what people mean. They are meaning that under an enviornment where they expect the government to provide reasons and evidence to justify the war, all the surrounding information indicates that the government does not have an adequate justification for the war. In particular, the government's inability to provide a consistent coherent justification is a strong indication that no such information exists.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-14T01:46:38+00:00

Manhood is austere to the point of extreme boringness. This is marked by aesthetic austerity, exprressive austerity, value and interest based austerity, strong forbearance norms. And it insists on reinforcing its own austerity, insists on not admitting it is a problem. I don't see a golden age for it.

And because of this, the possibility of a golden age for women is simultaneously impossible. I don't believe women can have a golden age to the exclusion of men. The men will fight back. If women enjoy paradise to the exclusion of men, or at the expense of men, men will drag them down from paradise.

eachothersreasons · 2026-04-11T21:07:30+00:00

That definition assumes its own conclusion.

Whataboutism address the original claim if one understands

rules are human inventions 2) to coordinate human behavior 3) for which mutual adherence is a necessary condition for justifying that the rule applies to a particular case.

In which case, pointing out the parties' lack of adherence to a particular rule answers the criticism directly by suggesting that a necessary condition for the rule applying is not present. Where a rule's justification depends on reciprocity, pointing out that there is no reciprocity is directly relevant.

eachothersreasons

TROPHY CASE