I give up. You’re just saying things for the sake of saying them. Literally none of that supports your hypothesis that it’s a personal failing that can be cured by getting hobbies.

• The complaint about relationships being casual and not progressing is a major complaint found in other studies. It is, in fact, possible to go on dates and get laid without obtaining the benefits of a committed relationship.
• Again, the political split by gender is obvious. But you’re dismissing how wide the rift is and why it’s happening, just chalking it up to a personal failing.
• What are the factors that are making it hard to approach? Why is that felt so broadly? This goes back to the flaw in your argument, stating the end goal as the solution.
• The harassment concern is the flip side of the approach problem. There’s no evidence that dating is actually more dangerous than before, so why is there this chilling effect? How is that a problem that can be fixed by individual effort?
• Dating apps have an overwhelming negative perception for actually landing a serious relationship. A majority of users reported using them without being open to long term commitment. See bullet 1.

You really sound like someone who hasn’t dated recently or knows any young people in the dating pool. Of the people I know, the research fits their complaints to the letter. They do work harder on self improvement than older generations ever did (mental health, physical health, public image on social media, etc…) with no results. Saying just go meet people is condescending, like a boomer telling people to get jobs by handing out printed resumes.

I don’t know what to say because you’re just talking past any logical argument…

“We can’t meet potential partners”

“JUST MEET WOMEM”

I am saying there isn’t a widespread problem

Uhhhh… OK? You can say that but it doesn’t make it true, all trends are pointing away from serious romantic experiences. Nearly 80% of baby boomers experienced a romantic relationships in their teenage years compared to 56% of Gen Z adults. In 2021, 54% of people ages 18-34 reported not having a steady partner compared to 33% in 2004.

women would also be affected

They are? Women and men report dating is harder than it was before. Less singles overall are dating. Women have more fear for their physical/emotional saftey in the modern pseudo-anonymous dating pool.

A big reason it’s framed as a male loneliness problem is the significant skew for women to be in committed relationships with older men, leaving younger men with an even larger singles cohort (32% of single women are ages 18-29 vs 51% of single men).

It’s not that hard to do the research and have an informed opinion. Just writing everything off as an echo chamber effect doesn’t work when there’s measurable events in the real world. Unless you have actual evidence that it’s a problem with their collective dating efforts then there’s no argument to be made. It’s not even based on anecdotal evidence, you’re just saying you think all these commenters haven’t tried your advice.

when you have a problem you should try and improve yourself to address the problem vs blame society

Right, so just a “bootstrap yourself” argument rather than looking at the flaws in our society.

what about that is any different than 25 years ago

You tell me, because there’s clearly a problem! Your answer is that millions of people collectively decided to become unwashed, lonely losers overnight? That none of them have even attempted of joining a baking class or meeting people at the park?

Thank God! Because we all know those backward Africans never could have done it on their own 🙄

The time and energy investment to get those hours is not linear. Going from 0 hours to 1 hour is (by definition) a massive change. You’re describing the solution as if there’s an accessible way to make meaningful connections in the digital era. If it were as simple as described, we wouldn’t have this societal problem because humans really don’t like being lonely.

…a difference between pretending to be interested in something to get laid and trying to find ways to do things you find interesting with other people

What’s the difference? Your advice never said the hobby needs to interest you. This whole conversation is about finding companionship and intimacy, not group hobbies.

Also, all of this argument puts aside that diving into new group activities is time and resource intensive. Having the time, flexibility and money to switch between them just to meet a few new people is an incredible privilege. It also inherently assumes you have access to these groups. Guess if you live in a social desert or don’t have reliable transportation you’re SOL and a loser for life?

The problem with “just get hobbies to meet women” is it’s glaringly obvious when people are there to do that. You can’t force yourself to enjoy an activity; you’ll naturally do what you want, which is approach women.

I have never met a person who is even moderately social that has a hobby where they interact with people of the opposite sex, and has platonic female friends…

Kind of a pointless truism. Dating is a numbers game, more encounters is more success. You even admit it could take this prospect up to a year of effort, now imagine that you have to build that opportunity network from scratch.

Again, I pointed out and fully admitted to the foreign media bias. However there’s a difference between dissecting the validity of reports and wholesale discarding them because of their source. If you do that (like our friend above), you’ve abandoned your unexamined received wisdom for a different flavor of the same.

The number one thing I see on the .ml instance is a total incomprehension of how China operates and is organized domestically. I know multiple close friends who went through a full childhood education and only left as adults. I also know a few who have split experiences, growing up in America + China. I’ve also personally been and have talked to people who’ve lived their whole lives (60+ years) there.

The one common thread: it is truly a different world, especially from a political and media landscape. For the amount of shit Western countries get about whitewashing history and controlling media narrative, the Chinese government has it down to a science.

Here are just a few verifiable examples.

• The Chinese air quality index is vastly inflated vs America’s. I’ve been in a Chinese city with a thicker orange smog haze than I’ve ever seen in America categorized as only light/moderate. Conversely, Chinese visitors have specifically commented on how good America’s AQI is vs the Chinese equivalent.

• China’s lock down of VPNs is already broad and growing faster, you can find dozens of threads like these. I personally struggled with this during my visits (Mullvad failed) and only my friend’s private work VPN had access. A local we were staying with asked to borrow our access because there was no way he could get a working VPN otherwise.

• The Chinese GPS system is a controlled black box and not compatible with the global standard. Your local map provider probably won’t work there unless they feed their data to the Chinese system to align their coordinates.

• The government has multiple official arms of censorship that have no parallel in the west. The imagined censorship of simply taking down every government criticism is naive; the system is careful calibrated and monitored to track and suppress collective action. Though I know many will dismiss the research due to country of origin/funding, I would encourage you to read the findings on this just because it’s really interesting.

• China has restrictions on practicing journalism that are complete outliers from the international norm. These include mandatory registration, ethics requirements (??), education level, and arbitrary restrictions on coverage of events and topics. [As a hint, this is a big reason for the dearth of outsider evidence]

This all builds an environment where the tight domestic control and censorship isn’t just common, but expected. Certain subjects just aren’t taught in schools (for example, Mao’s handling of Tibet). Posts on the Chinese Twitter equivalent dissappear all the time with no fanfare. Current CCP politics isn’t deeply discussed online because there’s no point.

This leads to the disconnect between outsider expectations and the domestic realities. We’re so used to seeing politics, news coverage and debates blasted all over western media that we don’t apply the proper lens to our access to Chinese events.

That’s what I mean when I say I don’t have a dog in the race. You can sometimes make educated deductions between what western media says and the official CCP statements, but completely throwing out all outside sources leaves you in the dark. On a topic like the repression of a minority ethnic group in the obscure outskirts, you’ll never find the clear answer.

My point was to rebuff all these comments saying there’s no way X Y Z could happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence + where there’s smoke there’s fire.

The problem is you and your strawman will never agree on how much fire there could be when you’re citing CCP press releases and he’s citing 3rd parties and hearsay.

Going to reply in broad strokes here due to length:

Previously: […]

1. Re-read my comment and point out where I definitively endorsed that every single one of those things is happening. I listed what I did as examples of the ways a genocide can manifest outside of mass murder.
2. You’re citing the imperialist genocide definition, look up what Lemkin’s original definition was.
3. Just for fun and as an example of how futile these arguments are: Uyghur birth rate allegedly dropped something like 60% from 2016 - 2019 compared to a fractional drop for the general population. Plenty of sources will say a similar number and how it’s from official records but you’ll refuse to accept them so there’s no acceptable way to prove it

[Salafi terrorists]…

1. Want to be clear I’m not making any political endorsement about the moral standing of any side. Terrorist/freedom fighter, etc…
2. Any violent separatist group has a resentful seed, people don’t blow stuff up solely because some foreign government told them to.
3. Yeah, non-state belligerents are going to get foreign funding, not sure what that has to do with my point.

[Tibetan immolation]

1. More funding talk, more dismissing sources…
2. You can find images of these. I won’t post here because they’re pretty graphic, but that’s concrete evidence in my book. Feel free to equivocate on exact number and intent, but my point was to show that these extreme protests happen.

[border restrictions etc…]

1. Pointing out that a disproportionate amount of the restricted area is in these controversial regions
2. Not all countries require a permit to approach these areas, generally they’ll let you walk through with a regular visa
3. There are accounts of rural villages and obscure rural highways being sporadically restricted. Odd for obvious reasons but again you’ll dismiss and there’s no way for either of us to officially confirm the specific locations 🤷

I’m not here with any specific dog in this race, but it’s clear that these counter arguments come in with a predetermined conclusion and deflect anything that doesn’t fit as a lie. Is there any claim the Chinese government could make that you wouldn’t defend?

It’s not up for argument that this repression has happened in China’s long history, you can check any history book you like (even China’s). The modern difference is careful media control and domestic isolation, which is perfect for creating this exact vague deniability.

…a single instance of a Uyghur being killed

Genocide is more than just killing, it’s the deliberate destruction of a people including its culture and institutions. In fact, the reason you’re so focused on people dying is because imperialist powers felt the need to redefine it to allow their exploitation. Even in its more narrow definition it still includes things like abducting and re-education of children and malicious targeted actions (forced labor, restricted reproduction, relocation, etc…).

China is a massive country, and has always had issues with maintaining control over its more distant and ethnically distinct pockets. This stretches back centuries right up to now. For example: 100+ years of separatism, uprisings and violent incidents in East Turkestan. Or more recently, 160 Tibetans self immolating in protest of government repression since 2009. In this lens, there’s plenty of evidence that could support these accusations.

Meanwhile anyone can visit Xinjiang

This sounds like something people parrot only if they haven’t actually traveled China. For one, Xinjiang is massive. It’s about the size of Iran; 1/6 of China by land area. Saying you can visit it is like saying you could visit somewhere in France + Spain + Germany + Italy.

For two, foreigners require a special permit to visit ~12-15% of China (varying by year). This includes the expected restricted zones (military or government areas), but also the areas along borders (many in Tibet and Xinjiang) and “politically sensitive” areas. There’s no official list published for obvious reasons but they’ll certainly let you know if you’re not welcome.

As a disclaimer for those of you furiously typing whattaboutgaza: Yes that’s a genocide. Yes, many countries have engaged in similar kinds of repression. Yes media will amplify stories that paint rivals in a bad light, no that’s not unique to western media.

I think Daggerheart is interesting in some ways but I think it’s very much tailored to what CR wants to perform rather than what makes a fun game at a table. The mechanics make for predictable narrative peaks and valleys, which give guardrails to DMs with weaker narrative skills. The tradeoff being a more narrow range of outcomes, which is most of the fun in rolling dice.

CR productions have a lot of issues, but I don’t think Daggerheart inherently has those deficiencies baked in. Their main problems stem from trying to scale voice-actors-at-a-table into a multimedia empire with sprawling IP. They can all make and perform a good character, but a bag of strong character concepts doesn’t turn M. Mercer into R. R. Martin.

Publishing a system without that IP baggage was a good/necessary step, Daggerheart will flourish or flop on its own merits. Hopefully it at least breaks DnD dominance a little more and gives room for more independent publishers (can’t resist a bump for Quinns Quest here)

You keep saying this like it’s a gotcha when even the barest level of research shows that it’s still better.

Emissions from battery production can vary wildly depending on the process used and manufacturing energy grid. According to this study, manufacturing an 80kWh battery will release between 2400kg and 16,000kg of CO2. A commercial lawnmower will have a ~20kWh battery, so in a lifetime with two batteries we’ll guess about 1200-8000kg CO2.

EPA says the average gas mower produces 88lbs of CO2 per hour of use. Over a 2000 hour commercial lifespan that’s 80,000kg of CO2. And that’s putting aside all the other pollutants and secondary emissions from maintaining a combustion engine.

Do a little research before you start your rants next time.

The UN has always been a veto exercise, nothing useful happens there so why would you expect it? It’s as performative as the US Congress with even fewer results. One side gets to tell their constituents “I voted for a good thing” and the other gets to say they defended their national interests on the global stage.

What would happen if this did pass, Israel just blushes and let’s them through? What’s to stop them from doing this in an agreement separate to the UN? Is Isreal really going to go to war with dozens of countries to stop some aid going through? Is the US going to sink their ships? No shot.

All of these countries are just as fine with the status quo as the USA. They just get to pretend there’s a valid reason for their inaction.

The entire global stage is at fault here, but the buck magically stops at Daddy USA no matter who’s in charge.

Depends on if you have a healthy wild source that can seed itself in. My woodline is almost entirely invasives so it took more legwork to balance it out. I ended up mostly planting small trees/shrubs to shade out the weeds and letting Virginia Creeper spread (love that stuff).

Barring that it probably depends on yard size and local climate. Might be more economical to clear with a sod cutter or spot weed + replace.

Check for local native plant orgs, they can get you plants in bulk. They might also have specific advice, for example if you need to avoid seeding certain plants to protect a vulnerable local species.

While it’s better than keeping a barren monoculture lawn, keep in mind that letting things grow with no intervention will get you a lot of invasive species. If you want healthier habitat for your critters try to keep an eye on what’s growing and replace the bad stuff with native options.

Fascinating is not the word I would use to describe that

When did I say that? All I want is for all belligerents to be held to the same standard. Show me the evidence that these missiles are falling on targets with strategic importance; show me that they’re making efforts to not waste human lives. It’s clear that Israel’s attacks are not and they’re rightly called out for it. Why is Iran above the same scrutiny?

US was the invader during the Vietnam War so that’s a bad example all around

Why is it a bad example? Does being the defender in a war make you immune to war crimes? It’s indiscriminate killing of non combatants either way.

You’re just wildly incorrect on all fronts here.

since you were the one talking about nations’ flags

A nation is not a nation state, and a population doesn’t have to be a sovereign state to have a flag.

No, they did it in order to hit their targets, which were often cities.

Exactly, to limit collateral damage. Germany (and the RAF’s night bombing, to be fair) also targeted cities with strategic war industries, they just cared more about their pilots’ safety than civilian lives.

You’re putting words in my mouth.

I’m not at all, I’m pointing out the lack of criticism for clips like the one above. There’s not even reserved judgment until we know what got hit and who died, just full throated support based only on the name of the city being bombed. I’m the only one here wanting evidence that these attacks are targeting anything of value and limiting non combatant deaths.

Remember when Israel was criticized for half-hearted pamphlet dropping to warn of barrages? All the scorn at Israel’s reports of the use of human shields? The outrage over bombing population centers and refugee camps allegedly hiding rockets? Zionists saying Palestinians deserved bombing because they elected Hamas and had parties celebrating Oct 7 and X% of Palestines supported Y?

I’m seeing the exact same comments in reverse. Just read the comments on this post. But this time nobody bats an eye because the “right” people are dying.

I don’t see how that makes a difference? Israel bombing civilians with precision doesn’t make imprecise bombing of civilians more acceptable. Everyone ends up just as dead. It just makes it more palatable for people who value retribution above civilian lives.

To put it another way: if you want to hit a military target but can’t do so without outsized collateral damage, you don’t have ethical grounds to make the attack. You don’t see people defending the USA’s use of Agent Orange in Vietnam just because it was the only feasible way to clear foliage.

Holy fuck you don’t even know what a nation is lmfao

If there’s anything to be learned from WWII, it’s that no one is more antifascist than communists.

If you knew anything about WW2, you’d know that strategic bombing of population centers was a futile effort that wasted lives. Allies and Axis both admitted it, and the Allies even stuck to day bombing to limit collateral damage.

I’ve been asking up and down this thread for any context on what these bombs hit, any evidence at all, and all I get is equivocation like yours.

Your “critical support” isn’t very critical at all, it’s pretty one dimensional. Isreal bombs a population center: bad. Iran bombs an Isreal population center: good. I’ve seen no depth beyond that.

These aren’t people being tried for their crimes, not even people being picked out and put in front of a firing squad. This is an explosion in a city. You have no clue who might have been in that area any more than I do.

How many residents have fired a weapon against a Palestinian? 30% if you’re being generous? That’s about the same as the population of children.

You’re OK with those odds? Or does your form of communism always cheer at indiscriminate death so long as some of the right people get caught in it? If X% of the population drinks the apartheid propoganda kool-aid it’s open season? What’s your number?