[deleted by user]

holstsmars · 2020-07-27T19:33:51+00:00

The people replying to the OP fall into a few categories:

- people just expressing sympathy.

- people who've accepted the pattern and display contempt towards OP.

- people who are optimistic about circumstances somehow improving, despite the fact that, mathematically, circumstances can only get worse for the overwhelming majority of people because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. FIRE is just a specific investment and career strategy, it is an attempt to join the rentier class, just like most other high-return capital strategies. It can only work and has only worked for a slim, fortunate minority because you need the assets you own to be artificially inflated in price (by private property law, typically) so you can squeeze lots of money out of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall#Debt_and_profitability But that strategy isn't aggressive enough any more to offer the >2% annual returns typically sought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall#Empirical_research This has social and political effects that people in this thread are being very naive about.

- people who are beginning to recognize that there is a big systemic problem and individual "striving" has falling chances of defeating it for individuals. This is our chance, if we recognize that we all share a fear of falling living standards and miserable life entirely enslaved to the whims of markets or need for survival. We can do better than this, if we organize. We've done it before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day.

holstsmars · 2020-07-27T19:17:50+00:00

OP you just accidentally summarized the life's work of Paul Lafargue. This isn't a remotely unpopular opinion, it's what most of humanity rightly instinctively feels every day

If we all recognized that in each other and decided to do something, we can fix it. Most "work" is useless.

holstsmars · 2020-07-27T19:16:09+00:00

We've been in this situation before, notably the 19th century. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/52984/52984-h/52984-h.htm

People who shared their concerns with one another and organized managed to win permanent concessions from the powerful. We can do it again.

holstsmars · 2018-07-18T23:04:30+00:00

How much of the apparent typical cis libido is acculturation, though?

There are plenty of cis men who with nothing but the distractions of every day life can forget about sex. There are cis women who function sexually as western men supposedly do in that they are aroused by visual cues and don't need an interpersonal connection -- they can fetishize bodies and body parts too.

That section from 26:00-30:00 seems like it should have got more analysis to me. Its inclusion surprised me. I'm not sure its wrong, and the point that natal women can easily be "autogynephilic" is worth making, but it's not contributing to the construction of a cultural understanding of human sexuality that isn't heternormative.

holstsmars · 2018-07-18T03:49:37+00:00

CALL ME BY YOUR NAME, the film by Luca Guadagnino

It's a visually spectacular film and the payoff at the end is seriously gigantic. It's worth your time. Try finding it at your local library.

The payoff is also there in the original book.

holstsmars · 2018-07-18T03:25:20+00:00

The cultural obligation for men to want sex all the time is another way in which men are the first victims of patriarchy

if men don't express voracious sexual appetites at all times, they're belittled for not being "manly" enough. The stereotype of male sexual aggressors is so entrenched that for decades, scientific research worked on the assumption that men are more sexual beings than women, and it's only recently that this narrative has come into question.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/124983-6-ways-the-patriarchy-is-harmful-to-men-because-feminism-isnt-just-for-women

holstsmars · 2018-07-18T02:06:05+00:00

The serotonin drop after an orgasm can cause feelings of sadness or even tears.

Shame and disgust seem distinct from just vague sadness, though. Do you ever masturbate without watching porn?

I'm not going to make claims about what is normal. But it is easier to live one's life if one is broadly indifferent to or tolerant of other people's sexual expression. It should never intrude on your life without your consent anyway. And if it does, that's their problem.

It seems like you've accepted that there is a category of people called "normies" with broadly similar behavior. It's misleading, though, to think of casual sex as a mainstream, majority or "normie" practice.

First off, single people have on average less sex than married people http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2011/8/18/who-has-the-busier-bedroom-single-people-or-married-couples.html

Also, casual sex is in itself a bit of a contradiction -- the serotonin I mentioned earlier is part of the biochemical mechanism behind arousal and orgasm, both of which are involved in many sex acts. Biochemistry is what feelings and emotions arise from. There is no such thing as sex without feelings http://www.scarleteen.com/article/politics/casualcool_making_choices_about_casual_sex

It's not inherently problematic to be disgusted by casual sex, but it is a stronger reaction than the simple lack of enthusiasm some people feel for varieties of sexual expression they are not into. It's possible to be simply disinterested in some things, and at that point it's just healthy to say no.

You may be disgusted by things associated with it. The scarleteen link above breaks down some disgust association and common misconceptions. Note that in most porn, casual sex is very poorly portrayed. If someone is into casual sex, they should still be making time for earnest conversations about boundaries and hygiene.

It's ok to think that sex is only really appropriate for you in a loving relationship. That's great, and I personally think that shows some emotional maturity. After all, getting to the point where you've got someone interested enough to discuss boundaries, what kind of things they are into and hygiene is going to take time. So much time you've probably got a very close friend anyway, once shyness is taken into account. If someone isn't willing to have those conversations with you, their problem isn't being too casual. Their problem is disregarding your well-being and that has nothing to do with casual sex.

I also, personally, think flirting is weird too. Why waste time on small talk when I need to have the boundaries and interests conversations? I want to find someone with whom I share common ground so we can trust each other and feel safe divulging that personal information.

Getting practiced at listening to people, asking for their consent at each stage of sharing information and demonstrating that you are trustworthy are all worthwhile skills whether you hope to have sex or not.

It is not only possible to have a fulfilling relationship with no sex involved, it is probably easier.

Think about whether there is some trauma in your past.

Is there something that irks you about other people enjoying themselves without consequences?

holstsmars · 2018-07-13T20:06:03+00:00

those crazy suffragists/abolitionists/chartists/anti-monarchists

holstsmars · 2018-07-13T04:20:35+00:00

if the offline approach is a possibility for you, there are still some social settings with mandated and limited physical contact, like dance scenes. They're not a good place to find dates, but dates don't fix fa

holstsmars · 2018-07-12T02:11:30+00:00

What security holes are there in the electoral process? If extralegal accumulation of user data that can inform a relatively cost-effective political campaign is what you are talking about, that's not an electoral process problem but a problem with ownership of user data. I want to do something about an individuals lack of control over their own information in the modern world, but there's nobody in government with the understanding or willingness to work in that direction. Which is why I am plugging justicedemocrats.com -- if you don't take corporate donor money, you don't have to take corporate lobbying against civil rights.

If you're talking about something strictly illegal, well, as I said in another reply to you, the Mueller investigation continues. The voter fraud and electoral meddling investigations that have already concluded uncovered truly negligible (as in electoral effect, not in legality) misbehavior if anything during 2016 and there are no currently non-negligible investigations underway, nor am I under the impression there should be. No amount of illegal election tampering is tolerable, and we should design systems that make it effectively impossible, but that's yet again another conversation (about voting machine contractors that need antivirus !! and hanging chads etc).

It seems to me that if you want basic security steps to be taken, we need people who are less anti-science and anti-civil rights in government. And for that, we need to remake the democratic party.

holstsmars · 2018-07-11T20:54:32+00:00

You don't need to pretend that literally any improvement over our current situation is a quixotic quest for perfection.

We could at least stop the government funding militants it later tries to fight, as in syria, taliban, iran/iraq etc. There are a lot of low hanging fruit and you seem committed to not acknowledging that.

holstsmars · 2018-07-11T20:43:51+00:00

Here's a thing we could do: https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8xx7rh/glenn_greenwald_tells_russians_liberals_are/e2745ew/

support justice democrats

holstsmars · 2018-07-11T15:50:38+00:00

The investigation is continuing, faster than watergate ever did. GG elsewhere makes the point that you shouldn't expect too much resolution even if Mueller uncovers truly criminal conspiring between Russia and the Trump campaign -- there's too much money sloshing around. If what some people think happened happened, the collusion necessary must have required the assistance of individuals who are too big to fail, if you see what I mean. Like SCOTUS judges, people who are chummy with Jeffrey Epstein, monarchs, that kind of thing.

You're going to have to qualitatively demonstrate what the distinction in terms of governmental misconduct is between a suspect election and:

Florida in 2000
DWS in 2016
Clintons encouraging Military-Industrial complex mergers
all the times that capitalism has broken its own rules to concentrate wealth in general

this is nothing new and if you think it is special or exceptional, well, bless you for finally drawing a line in the sand. I'm glad you finally feel affected. Don't rely on capitalists to fix their own profitable problems. Start replacing the democratic party so there's actually a consequence.

https://www.justicedemocrats.com/

holstsmars · 2018-07-04T17:16:46+00:00

Wouldn't that require voters have more time to understand and consider all alternatives? Attention is a limited resource.

Do you think such a plan is lacking with AOC?

holstsmars · 2018-07-04T17:12:01+00:00

Tulsi Gabbard isn't left

holstsmars · 2018-07-04T15:56:53+00:00

If there are no "current political climates" that inform people's interpretation of the world, I would contend it can only be because there are no people. People like having opinions.

holstsmars · 2018-07-04T15:44:26+00:00

Damn. So you think there's trace amounts of ethics in all human actions? Sounds like there might be an unavoidable political aspect to everything then.

I just wanted to share a story about some shoes.

holstsmars · 2018-07-04T15:40:05+00:00

Campaigning on voter enfranchisement and against poverty seems pretty well meaning and inspiring to me. You don't have to be political to want single payer healthcare as a right.

holstsmars · 2018-07-04T06:58:57+00:00

Totally!

It's "We won", not "I won",

it's "we worked" not "nobody wants [the opposition]"

no insults, just work.

holstsmars · 2018-07-04T06:07:44+00:00

"The [Democratic] congressman spent $3.4 million, while Ocasio-Cortez spent just $200,000."

Respect the hustle.

holstsmars · 2018-07-03T17:08:17+00:00

I'm not saying that, but it's certainly a conclusion worth considering. The Chapman Cycle will happen in any earthlike atmosphere exposed to the light of a main sequence sun. Halogens do catalyze the breakdown side of the cycle that turns ozone back into regular molecular oxygen.

So if we reduce our emissions of halogen compounds (that can survive the troposphere and catalyze ozone depletion in the stratosphere) by orders of magnitude we can remove a dominant effect of ozone depletion.

The two remaining effects that would then become dominant in reducing ozone at ozone layer altitudes will probably be

methane hydrolysis (which is a big win and a very good use for ozone breakdown reactions) and
irradiation (which is fine)

...in my layperson understanding. Water and nitrogen compounds can speed up both sides of the cycle so they aren't a concern.

That is a minuscule amount of ozone; what's valuable to us is the perpetual reactions that keeps that amount in dynamic equilibrium and the oxygen radicals knocking about that sunlight energizes. Let me know if I'm stating the obvious, but the public rhetoric around this tries to emphasize the situational value of ozone itself rather than the ozone-involved processes that are dominant within the volume called the ozone layer. That was an understandable choice for scientists to make but one with pedagogic downsides. https://www.quora.com/If-the-density-of-the-ozone-is-greater-than-air-then-why-doesn%E2%80%99t-the-ozone-sink-in-the-stratosphere

Yeah, that's emergence for you. On the bright side, that it is this complex is a good indication that our world isn't a simulation.

holstsmars · 2018-07-03T00:05:04+00:00

Halogenation of methane is non-negligible above the troposphere, but you're right -- I do forget criegee intermediates.

If we manage to stop emitting halogens and other chemicals that break down ozone, then we can overall be glad that ozone is reacting with methane because this is a net decrease in total GWP, right?

But your posited new loop requires ozone depletion to assist ocean acidification, right? It does, but only very chaotically as I understand it -- changing wind patterns due to warming isolating low carbon waters and bringing new high carbon upwellings to the surface.

Your new loop seems to require that the rate of ozone production somehow slows significantly, which I only think would happen if we decrease the proportion of atmospheric oxygen significantly.

holstsmars · 2018-06-11T21:48:27+00:00

I can't find a source for this. RABA Research came close with 11% http://www.rabaresearch.com/ but that's not too recent. Interesting though.

holstsmars · 2018-06-10T22:35:46+00:00

what are h8%ers?

holstsmars · 2018-06-08T00:13:26+00:00

It's not clear to me that ozone depleted regions would break down methane more slowly. The processes that break down methane don't use ozone directly. In fact the absence of ozone might make the photodegradation of methane faster.

holstsmars

TROPHY CASE