todorus

To conflate the main activities of an occupying army with that of a tactical cell or rebel/insurgent and claiming they're the same in nature, really makes me wonder why we would have intelligence agencies or counterterrorist rapid response units. The army would suffice.

This is not a "we're the good guys, and they're the bad guys" propaganda thing. It just defines a very different mode of combat. Nice try, but a terrorist is a subversion of a secret agent, not a soldier.

As stated, the male gaze is a form of misogyny.

Since you keep asking the same, here's some reading for you as well. It's not worth my energy to reply if your just going to ignore that and repeat your question. Best of luck.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze

Why is it considered by others to be a bad thing, to see women as lesser and to keep them down, just because they're women?

Let me give you an easy out here, and tell you my assumptions. I am assuming it also only took you a minute to look up the definition. And after reading it, then couldn't come up for a reason for others to judge that kind of behavior.

I am kind of stumped of how to actually reply to this, to me it is just pretty obvious that any kind of prejudice or bias like that is strongly unwanted.

Please become familiar with the guidelines. Your comments show you aren't, or show a complete disregard for it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If it exists for males to revel in?

Yes, the male gaze is misogynist. I don't think that still requires explaining, it has been written about a lot.

Bit off topic but a pet peeve of mine.

"A few bad apples", is only the first part of the expression that ends with: "spoil the batch". I think it is applicable here as well.

What's your point? The reason that guns are dangerous isn't schizophrenia either, but we know that they're more dangerous than marijuana as well. Likewise it is quite evident that sugar has been causing way more harm than marijuana, albeit in a different way.

If someone close to you had to deal with schizophrenia then I am sorry. It does not however make sugar any less of a danger.

It isn't lack of understanding that is being expressed, it is a lack of acceptance. I think that is a good thing.

And even if you would percieve ignorance instead, it doesn't mean that they need snark targeted at them. Please respect the community guidelines of this comment section.

"The famous Marshmallow Test. Do the kids have high trust or low trust in the authority figure to give them 2 marshmallows?"

Not a good example as those were about the child having the discipline to wait the needed time for the second marshmallow. Trust wasn't measured. You can argue that the kid needs trust to get to the discipline part, but then you're not talking about that experiment anymore, and the burden of proof increases significantly.

Also it has been debunked as an indicator of discipline and later succes in life, and has now become a famous example of the reproduction problem psychology is reckoning with. I would just generally stay away from it to proof a point. It will only weaken your position if someone familiar with it.

Sorry for being off topic here, but it's popular use is starting to irk me

I agree with the point you're trying to make, but not your sentiment.

To quote the guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community"

The ability to speak English is a function of wealth? Sorry, what?

Internet is bigger than the mainstream. It's not just YouTube and Facebook. If you really wish to have a side stream, maybe go on 4Chan or visit the dark web.

Because let's not pretend that the internet was easy to navigate back in the day. You wanted the alternative nichy stuff, you needed to work for that. That never changed, neither online nor offline.

Neither does it his. It is a problem for some areas to the point it will completely erode the empathy of people who have to live with it. Their stake is not an internet argument, but a daily reality to deal with.

You can then argue that it's caused by mental illness and we should be empathetic, but I've talked to multiple people who actually worked in psych wards, my mother being one of them. They know they need to take care of them and be empathetic, but boy don't they all have stories to tell that has caused them to dehumanize them to some extent, or suffer burnout as the alternative.

Don't just empathize with the mentally ill, but also the others you so easily burden with doing the actual work.

Again: "you're holding it wrong".

Just because a plant based lifestyle is burdensome, doesn't mean people think it should be. And by that reasoning neither should any other diet. So I don't get why the projection of your experience onto the experience of others is so necessary

Firstly, why does every story need to include a mix of genders speaking?

Did every Saturday morning cartoon have to end with explaining the moral of the story, and followed by a joke with the whole cast laughing? They didn't, but they sure used to.

Did the old knightly tales always have to show christian values and knightly valour, through a whole lot of christian symbolism? They didn't, but they sure used to.

Likewise I've started to read all the classic sci fi, and it is very noticeable, that women just want to have sex with the main character for no real reason. Because ya know, it would be nice to admit that women have sexual desires as well, and that it's especially convenient if that would mean them pleasing the protagonist that just shows up.

Read one, and you don't have to complain about it, read several and you start to see it pervasive and an outlook of the times. So I look forward to the hundredth story about going out with your mates, so I can call it out in the same manner

You're missing the point. As these things are regulated, the holes get plugged by the authority regulating them. This is not so much the case in the crypto space. They see regulation as an ineffeciency, that needs to be disrupted

Meanwhile they're discovering that these regulations were actually safeguards, and they're not solving any problem. They're just reinventing the wheels of the finance sector.

It is becoming very clear from your comments you have not seen the thing you're criticizing, bur rather argue from a paradigm you're familiar with. So I am going to join the chorus here and advise you to visit a dutch city, so you can yourself experience that there's more than one design paradigm that is valid, when it comes to urban planning.

Excuse me? Dutchie here, the US have a horrible reputation even among their allies. They are as much criticized as Russia is right now. Maybe even more so considering that we get more imagery from the "exploits" of the US.

Stop with this double standard whataboutism, and maybe find some other circles to hang around in: you'll find the critique you wish for there.

You sound like you found it more important that the source of the claim be found, than the conclusion of those resources not being as easily available. Barring the idea that anyone can look at facts and come to an conclusion of their own instead if it always needing to be a quote. Weird take.

It hasn't ceased to amaze me to see how many people from the US think of their ideology as the end result of a process. As their ideology is the logical conclusion of it, and some countries are more mature than others along this line of development.

What really brought it home to me, was a podcast of two boardgame designers working on the "tech" trees of a Civilization type game. One was for religion, which had to start with mysticism, to move on to theology. When my offense about this line of thinking passed I had to wonder: since Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam, are they going to stop the monotheistic track at Christianity or Islam?

Do you have a problem with the words "disorder" or "illness"? Because it comes across to me that it rubs you the wrong way that so many people can be considered flawed in some way. I don't think that way of looking at people is untruthful or wrong, it's just a lot more nuanced to look at it than a person being either "sane" or "insane".

I really do wonder this as you so explicitly put "mentally ill" and "disordered" as interchangeable, which they clearly are not. Pretty much everyone has some kind of disorder, which they can address. Only a few have a mental illness, which they can learn to cope with.

Your example also serves to reduce attempts at nuance even further, by trying to make mental illness only understandable through the lens of a physical one. So one has got to wonder: maybe you are lumping way too many things onto one pile?

I don't see any reason why it would just go away as a concept, though. It seems like it's pretty well established at this point that there is a collection of characteristics that some people have that fit the current understanding of what is meant by "autism".

The caveat being that this category exists within the current framework. The same could be said about "female hysteria", and pretty much all psychological conditions that have been left behind as symptoms of the zeitgeist.

I don't think this comment section is supposed to be a competition. Neither do I think the article was a sneer towards others, but a way to ask for empathy for a certain situation. It wasn't about you, and you don't need to make it about you.

I think this sentiment would be good motivation for her to keep on going. For one, a lot of comedy is based on grievance and grudge and presenting them in a novel light. And she is shedding light on subjects, that could use a more honest representation in mainstream culture.

And as a dutch person, I was happy that I could finally watch a comedian with my wife, that didn't have the rapid fire of separate jokes and at some random point just... ends. Instead I could watch a show with her that had theme and an arc, and also wasn't afraid to just put the audience in uncomfortable position and leave them there for a while. It really felt like going to a dutch comedian, and I was surprised to see this have any success in the US market.

For me the analogy falls flat, as the cuban missile crisis is a response to something the US did, and the invasion of Ukraine is a response to something that Ukraine did (and not NATO)

NATO did not court Ukraine, instead Ukraine wishes to be a member, the current invasion to prevent it being so ironically a case in point. Finland is now considering joining as well, as a response to Russias agression.

It is clear that Russia does not think to invade Finland as well, as it does not consider it to be a part of its old empire, but it does Ukraine.

So in this case it is the sovereignty of a country that is being challenged, as Russia is trying to strongarm countries into backing off from joining NATO. It is not threatening NATO directly. That is a big difference with the Cuban missile crisis.

In the Cuban missile crisis it is very clear that both sides were pointing arms at each other and coercing members of their respective alliances to comply. Here a potential member is invaded. Korea, Vietnam or even the colonisation if Africa would make more sense as an analogy, of power blocs deciding what a country belongs to.

I don't understand, do you want to stop the blame game, or would you rather have it pointed at the US, because:"the US started it"?

Two wrongs don't make a right, now do they? I find it mind boggling that such an act of agression can be made immune to critique because "some other country did it worse that one time."

The US stationed missiles in Turkey and as a response the USSR stationed missiles in Cuba. The crisis ended when the USSR publicly deconstructed their sites and the US agreed to do the same to theirs privately. This all because Kennedy needed to save face and have the USSR be the agressor.

So if NATO would decide to invade Belarus right now, then it might be similar to the Cuban missile crisis. Until then, it is just a gross oversimplification of a conflict that is the result of complex relations between countries.

Are you wilfully ignoring that there is a legal definition of what a business is, that the issue at hand is spoken about in a legal context? Your personal semantics are irrelevant in that context.

You sound like the motivation behind social security and UBI are different.

It's nice to present a clean (modeled) plan, but it's something different when it hits reality. Social security now, is what UBI will look like a few decades down the road.

Somebody will find a way to exploit UBI and that hole gets patched, then there's another patch and another. Not to speak of how different political ideologies will apply their own modifications to previously established laws

There's a difference between reasonable and pedantic. To say "going through that neighborhood is perfectly safe", doesn't mean you're not aware of there ever being crimes there.

So yeah, if you would try something like that within the context of a very contested issue, I would definitely assume you're clandestinely trying to sabotage the discussion.