To be fair, this kind of kinetics-as-pevention works.

I use this strategy to prevent eating too many snacks – I do not keep them at home. I can’t have them if they are not here. If 90% of the time I would “choose” not to have chips, not-having-them stops me the other 10%

I think the difference is the perceived energy barrier if one wanted to fool around on their partner if they a bi vs het.

A bi guy could, hypothetically, find a guy on grindr pretty much on a whim if he wanted to. This is a much lower barrier than straight guys face unless they seek a sex worker. If you are a woman in the early stages of dating someone, where you don’t know yet how much you can trust a guy, if a guy tells you he is bi that can come off as a higher cheating risk than a straight guy.

Straight guys dating a bi-girl don’t have a similar perceived risk increase. Early in the relationship, guys may not even see the potential of a bi-girl hooking up with a girl as ‘cheating’, vs a bonus for his enjoyment. But also - finding a new girl to date is considered harder than finding an interested guy. So the ‘cheating’ risk doesn’t feel that much higher for guys dating a bi-girl compared to a straight girl; he may feel like he is still mostly competing against other guys.

Is this fair or even realistic? No, this is based on perceived stereotypes rather than the behaviors and character of individuals.

But this plays out at a stage of dating where people don’t know each other well yet and are relying on heuristics.

Startups typically have to offer both higher pay and a lot of shares.

It’s basically the same thing that scammers do - they know they have a terrible approach, but that’s fine because they are only looking for the easy marks who are too oblivious to sense anything is wrong.

This CEO is preventing anyone with self preservation or a sense of actual industry norms from applying, increasing the proportion of aps from the gullible.

The simplist answer is that this guy could buy some high-coverage foundation and a make-up sponge. He could change his appearance in other ways too if he likes - get a wig, fake nose, etc.

I want to discuss the first statement in your last reply - about “lumping all single men together”.

That is just how quantification of anything works. If we were talking about unemployment, or number of people with blue cars, or days with rain - if there is an increase, you mark on the sum increase over the previous baseline, and discuss potential reasons for the new influx.

If you think you are part of the previous baseline - guys who would have been single in past generations, then the discussion doesn’t apply to you. Even if no one goes through and specifically excludes you. Because the influx is what is being discussed - not the baseline.

But I don’t think you are actually upset at being lumped in with the influx. I think you are upset because the guys in the influx are being rediculed and you desperately want to find a reason to both be mad about that and to say those criticisms don’t apply to you.

You say you don’t want to be assumed to be a PoS bc you don’t have a gf.

If you really are not trying to date, I don’t think you run the risk of that.

The criticism in the top post is directed at guys who are obsessed with their dating status - but see it as a game they are losing, and women as objects to be manipulated into what they want.

If you are trying to date but see women as hostile opponents to be ‘managed’, you are going to act like a PoS.

What determines your PoS status isn’t your dating status - it’s whether you see and treat women as fully equal people with the same expectations to dignity and respect as your guy friends, or if you see women as alien beings on an opposing team - targets to potentially be manipulated to get what you long for, or targets of resentment for withholding or being inaccessable for what you long for.

If you are truly single and don’t have any resentments towards women about it, you are unlikely to come off as a PoS.

But honestly, that isnt how your comments are coming off

Another way to put it is that our culture is creating a lot of men who no one wants to be around. Who either don’t see themselves as needing to be likable or who see being likable as something that goes completely against their identity – something that is ‘impossible’ for them that they refuse to work on.

A lot of this may be tied to ideas of masculinity that see social awareness, empathy and cooperation as feminine traits since ‘tough guys’ in media can get ‘respect’ and attention despite eschewing all of those traits.

If you feel particularly lacking in those traits, it can feel very reassuring to tell yourself you can’t work on those things and it’s unfair to be judged or suffer consequences for deficiencies in them - because there is no escaping the sense of vulnerability one feels when trying to build up something one is weak in.

So we end up with a lot of guys who are sullen about being miserable and being miserable to be around.

These guys have a lot of hard work ahead of them. The first big hurdle is accepting that they have to be responsible for becoming people that others like being around - and getting over their safety blanket idea that they ‘can’t’ so they shouldn’t bother.

I think this is still a skills issue, the question is “what skill?”

You have a passionate interest. What you don’t know how to do is talk about it in a way that shares why it is so fascinating to you. That can be worked on. It’ll take practice, including more times where you flop, but you can try to watch how people with other niche interests pull people in and create intrigue and excitement.

Trying to learn this skill for your passion will help you do it more generally; it will make you a more interesting person that people enjoy connecting to.

If you are male and lonely but it is because of social anxiety, why do you feel attacked by this? You have a different, external reason for being lonely than the broad swath of the criticism.

Why do you feel attacked by this if it is advocating for circumstances (men improving their interelational dynamics to build deeper friendships) that would likely improve your opportunities to comfortably challenge your social anxiety?

If you feel attacked, is it because your attitude is the problem being criticized? That rather than seeing your social anxiety as your burden to overcome, you instead see it as a reason that society owes you access to the company of women you find attractive - that at the heart of it, you feel aggreived that women don’t have to pick you?

I think that to a narcissist empathy is also chaos and terrifying - it drives ‘irrational’ behavior in others that is not intuitive for them and works against their goals. It has to be absolutely infuriating to them.

Getting average people to the point that they are ready to do something like a general strike is a process.

Most people don’t even want to have to go to a protest.

But going to a protests is like anteing up in poker – it is mentally anchoring people as in the game and publicly taking a side.

And yeah - the fucks in power are going to say “bet”.

So now millions of people who are not where we already are, who have not wrestles with this and avoided it as long as they can - they are starting to ask, “ok, what do we actually have to risk to change this? What am I willing to do?”

Will we get enough people actually engaged enough for a general strike? I have no idea.

But I know it won’t happen without giving people a ramp-up that includes things like the protest this weekend.

I feel like food that takes multiple days to prepare needs a cost of labor included in the estimated price per person

Unfortunately, research on prisoners and concentration camp victims did produce new valuable medical information.

Most of the field of gynecology is based on experiments done on women slaves, where the “doctors” decided their victims conveniently didn’t have nerve endings.

Ethics throttles research.

But I am aghast at the thought that we should permit unethical research in the pursuit of, at the end of the day, greed.

And I say this as a professional scientist.

I can’t believe this conversation is even necessary.

“Why do Unions have to be considered Left?”

Tell me you have no idea about the history of labor rights without telling me…

The median zoomer can probably talk about it far more accurately than the median gen x-er or boomer

Ok. Before you get mad. Do you think you are a normal representative of your age group?

If you walk into a room of people you don’t know but who are all likely born within +/-5yrs of you, would you expect to be able to talk about crypto with any sophistication and at least half would be able to follow?

If not, then the generalization is true even if it doesn’t apply to you specifically.

I’ve literally overheard multiple dinner party conversations about good finds from trader joes

Ohhhh thank goodness.

Ok, then it’s just algorithm weirdness that I was shown the lower-voted post first. Phew!!

Oh damn. That makes a lot of sense.

All of your responses are non-sequitors to my points and your initial argument.

1. I googled if Gaza has refugee camps that are safe from Israeli attack, because that is counter to 15mo of news. Do you have a source? That is somehow more credible than dozens of international news articles and experts saying “no where in Gaza is safe”? Story after story of Gazans following evacuation routes directed by the IDF that the IDF then attack.

2. For the sake of argument, let’s say that there are refugee camps that are safe. As you say - there are millions of Gazans. They all need to be safe. They all need access to safety because they are human beings.

3. What is your point about ‘100,000 Gazans safe in other countries’? I think you mean that there are ‘enough’ outside that it is ‘ok’ to exterminate the ones still trapped in Gaza because their ‘lineage’ is preserved.

Humans are not a variety of carrot. We don’t say it’s ok to kill some percentage of a people just as long as we don’t kill them all. Hitler could have said it was ok to kill all the Jews in Europe because there are ‘enough’ in the US. It would still have been wrong to kill any Jews in Europe for being Jewish, just as it is wrong for Israel to attack Palestinian civilians for being Palestinian.

Every person has a right to their own individual life that should not be taken by any state because they are the wrong ethnicity in the wrong place. Genocide is wrong at the scale of individual people.

That is the heart of human rights, and you misunderstand that at your own peril.