Millennial? Gen X’er here. I have the box for every piece of electronics or appliance, and I have an extremely limited amount of space. If you like to resell things when you no longer need them it really helps.

I wasn’t saying we are conditioned to find women sexy. I’m saying we have been conditioned to treat women as sex objects and not sexy people. There is a big difference.

The clue is in the name. Objectification is when you treat someone like a thing to be desired, and not like a whole human being with thoughts and desires of their own. When you act like getting you aroused is their sole purpose and/or the only value they possess.

It’s a learned behavior like racism or misogyny. And no, It won’t always happen, not once we evolve enough emotionally as a species to treat all human beings with love and respect.

I think people should be able to feel attractive if they want and not be objectified. I don’t think men objectify women because they look pretty, I think we do it because we have been conditioned to think of women that way.

I actually prefer when women don’t wear tons of makeup, most of the women I date wear very little or none at all. That being said if they ever decide to wear makeup I think it’s great because they are expressing themselves. Either way I look at them as people first, even if I think they are beautiful.

I also wear earrings and occasionally a simple necklace. I don’t think I’m objectifing myself, just that is how I like to look like. I think the same is true for a lot of women.

I know you don’t mean it this way, but it almost sounds like you a validating the viewpoint of certain gross people who ask SA victims what they were wearing.

I think even the most knockout drop dead gorgeous people deserve to not be objectified. And whether I find them to be typically has nothing to do with how much makeup they are wearing or how much jewelry they have on.

If the only reason someone isn’t objectifing you is because you dress plainly, that seems like they still aren’t good people. I know it is a super prevalent though.

To each their own though. I’m also the guy who thinks people should be able to walk around completely naked and not be harassed or objectified, so my viewpoint isn’t typical at all.

I’m not the one who down voted you by the way. I think it’s weird to do that to people just because you don’t agree with them.

Well, “Liberalism” is further left than say Monarchism or Feudalism, but it believes in “private property” (as opposed to Personal Property) as one of it’s core values- and as such is compatible with Capitalism, especially “Economic Liberalism” and Neoliberalism, which are right wing ideologies. It replaces ‘monarchs’ with ‘wealthy people’ as the ruling class. Anarchists such as myself tend to use “Private Property” as equivalent to the “Means of production”. In my view ‘Personal Property’ need not necessarily be ‘movable’ to count. For example your private domicile could be a permanent structure, but if it’s used to live in and not make things in- it’s Personal Property.

When Right wingers talk about being ‘anti-government’, they don’t mean it in the literal sense. They mean they don’t want the government telling THEM what to do, but are fine with the government telling everyone else what to do. They want unrestricted capitalism, and the ‘freedom’ to be hateful white supremacist and misogynistic bigots. But they also use the power of ‘The State’ to defend their “private property rights”. If there were no state- they wouldn’t be free to exploit people. Capitalism requires a state.

When it comes to small/“anti” government Republican politicians, it’s typically a misnomer and used to exploit the ‘anti-government’ sentiment in their base. For example George W. Bush ran as a “Small Government Republican” and then proceeded to grow the government bigger than any president in U.S. History.

I would put Liberalism and “Small Government” republicans further left than authoritarian “Socialist” regimes.

I think a rational “Left-Right Spectrum” would look something like (from left to right)

Anarchism, Communism, Socialism, Social Democracy, “Centrists”, Liberal Democracy, Neo-conservatism, Authoritarian “Socialism”, Monarchism/Feudalism/Imperialism, Fascism.

Gracias

I wish people would stop referring to Tankies and authoritarian regimes as leftists. If we stop entertaining the hallucination that they are- then maybe places like Wikipedia will start labeling them correctly as right wing.

From the very beginning of the terms “Left” and “Right” to describe the political spectrum, which originated in pre-revolutionary war France, the Left has always been about freedom from Tyranny and the Right has been pro-government (ruling class) control.

Maybe the USSR did start out as revolutions of the proletariat, but once they were controlled by increasingly authoritarian leadership, that should have flipped them from left to right on the political spectrum. In a sane world that’s exactly what would have happened. Guess who’s best interests it was to mislabel the USSR, the PRC and the DPRK as ‘Leftists’? Ill give you one guess. If you said capitalists and the right wing in Western democracies- That’s a bingo! And of course they are going to label themselves as ‘left wing’. To admit otherwise would be to expose the whole lie. So in a weird example of cold war cooperation between the East and West, that fiction has continued.

The only reason that Communism and Socialism were correctly labeled as ‘Left’ ideologies in the first place is because, implemented correctly, they both offer less control by the ‘ruling class’. Socialism was meant to return the power to the people, and communism was meant to abolish the state completely. Authoritarian regimes run counter to both those goals. You will NEVER abolish the state by strengthening the state. That makes about as much sense as ‘trickle down economics’. Hey maybe if we give the billionaires all the money, they’ll give us a little back in return. Spoiler alert, no they wont.

/rant

I’m seeing like 13 different .ml instances. Did you block them all or is there a specific one we are talking bout here? Sorry, I’m pretty new to Lemmy

Shots fired!

Lol, that’s really cool. As a Fallout fan I couldn’t help making the connection.

Good luck in getting the timing right!

For sure. I just looked it up out of curiosity to see if the source it gave was real or not. As someone living in my own metaphorical root cellar, it was actually enlightening and something I really needed to hear right now.

The Potato Parable

It has nothing to do what the AI said ofc, nor was it written by Caitlin D’Arcy, who is a character on a TV show. lol

You trying to create ‘Tatos’? Lol

I don’t know but I love the fact that even AI is calling EA out on it’s bullshit!

I can confirm it works for DuckDuckGo as well.

I love how it even lists ‘sources’ (I checked, that phrase does not appear in either “source”)

Edit: To make this phenomenon even funnier, I just asked it the exact same question and it gave me a different answer this time. Still “playful” though :)

Well… depending on how long ago you separated from that partner who tried to pressure you into marriage, you could discover how her decision to return to someone who mistreated her turned out.

Unfortunately, a few weeks after we split up she told me that she couldn’t handle being just friends with me and so I left her alone. A couple years later I ran into one of her friends, who told me she moved back home to Kentucky and she had another child with him (he was already her baby daddy when I was with her). Hopefully they are having a wonderful life. As far as him mistreating her goes all she really said about him was that he was mean to her and he had a small penis- so hopefully that’s as bad as it got. I have tried to look her up and despite her having an unusual first name- Facebook wasn’t any help and I’d have no idea how to find her other than that. I have no idea what her married last name would be. It was almost 25 years ago when we dated.

I’ll be honest… I ended up being much more generous of myself than I would have ever pictured me. Marriage does not come without its sacrifices.

I can see that, and no shade to people who did get married. I used to find the idea of marriage kind of beautiful, until my ‘first love’ and former fiance kind of stabbed me in the back. I suppose in some ways I’m cynical towards the concept. And to be perfectly honest I have struggled with mental illness most of my life and it’s not getting any better- so that effects my prospects romantically. I always said that I’d rather be alone and unhappy than with someone and miserable- so it may have been a self fulfilling prophecy in some ways.

Anyway it’s really cool that you were able to reach inside and find the fortitude to make those sacrifices and make things work out for you guys. That shows a lot of character. A lot of people never find that which is partially why the divorce rate is so high I think.

No, but I don’t really believe in marriage anyway.

The way I see it if you are only with someone because of a promise, that is less special than being with someone because you currently want to be with them. I’ve had several meaningful relationships over the years and have no regrets. I wouldn’t trade any of that for being stuck in an unsatisfying relationship or giving the government control over my personal life like being legally married requires you to be.

I’m a pretty unconventional person though and most of the women I am attracted to felt the same way, with one exception. That relationship ended way too early because I didn’t believe in marriage. The crazy thing is I probably would have eventually married her because it was important to her, but she gave me an ultimatum and I hate being manipulated like that, so I broke it off. The speed at which she got back with her ex bf who supposedly treated her badly tells me that I made the right choice.

There was an unspoken rule for Gen-X — it was in many ways as you have described here. If you got rejected by a girl… that door was closed. And there wasn’t really room for friendship. If you got burned by a girl, you moved on and didn’t even pretend to like them. Done

I am Gen-X as well. That ‘rule’ might have been true in certain social circles, but it wasn’t a rule among my friends at all. I had lots of female friends. (I didn’t call them females though, I called them women or girls). Some of whom I had turned down in a romantic capacity, some of whom had turned me down, and some of whom were already in relationships or we just weren’t each others type.

It think the difference is all in mindset. I didn’t continue to be friends with the girls who turned me down in the hopes that one day they might change their mind. I stayed friends with them because they were cool people who I liked as people. And I hope at least the same was true for the women I had turned down.

And in the time there were even instances where I did get involved with women I had previously turned down, and with women who had turned me down. None of those relationships worked out in the long run, but we all remained friends afterwards.

I think it’s a problem to have the mindset that being friends with a girl means you are ‘just waiting’ your turn or whatever. Some women are amazing people and worth knowing as friends, it’s not all about sex. In fact it’s probably the fact that I treated my lady friends as human beings that we would end up getting together in a lot of cases. I wasn’t expecting it, or waiting on it, or ‘simping’ or whatever. I was just their friend

Is that Barbie Streisands house?

Boy, it sure would be a real shame if people did that sort of thing. Like tragic even. Hell I might even shed a tear! (If I’m chopping onions when I hear about it)

Hey man, you might have been around a while- a lot of us have- that clearly doesn’t make you an expert.

They were all considerably lower quality, cheaper, and easier to make than AAA games.

You are confusing ‘production value’ with ‘quality’. Being ‘easier to make’ (if that were true) and costing less to produce are both objectively good things, the only way that someone could remotely think they were bad is if they confuse ‘production value’ with ‘quality’.

In 1992 a crime film was released called “White Sands” having a budget of $22 Million. That same year an indie film was released called “Reservoir Dogs” with a budget of $1.2 – 3 million. White Sands had great production values and 11 times more budget than Reservoir Dogs had.

Both films had very good actors, but ironically the Tarantino film was the one that didn’t star Samuel L. Jackson. The ‘production value’ of Dogs is quite low. There are only a handful of locations and the majority of the film is shot in 1 room of 1 warehouse.

Reservoir Dogs is to this day hailed as one of the best films of the genre and a ‘masterpiece’ and White Sands is… I’ve honestly never even heard anyone mention it even once in the last 33 years and had no idea it even existed before googling ‘Crime films from 1992’.

See also “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, “Halloween”, “Trainspotting”, “The Evil Dead”, “Night of the Living Dead”, “Memento”…etc

Having a huge budget and high production values clearly don’t make a film good or lack thereof a film bad- same goes for video games.

There are plenty of “AAA” games that were turds you’ve just forgotten about them. And there are still plenty of AAA games being released so saying that we’ve " been conditioned to accept (indie games) now." is just wrong. People don’t play indie games because they’ve been ‘conditioned to accept’ them, they play them because they are fun.