Let’s move on.

I enjoy MOBAs a lot, but their communities tend to be so toxic… I’m playing other multiplayer games because I am tired of the toxicity (among other things).

I think that’s the ambiguity. An AFAB only space is different to a women’ (and maybe other feminine identities I’m not aware of) space. The first, AFAB, is about the sex you were born into. The second is about your gender (and here we can even create different groups, but that’s beyond the point). The ambiguity comes because each of us uses “female” differently, sometimes to mean this or that. That’s the importance of specifying what we mean, especially when creating a club or something similar.

As many have already told you, people need more than just physical companionship.

I’d add that some people cannot be happy even with a healthful environment because of internal or personal issues. For example, certain cluster B personality disorders or traits cause that people feel empty deep down. They will enjoy things for a while, but often return to feeling incomplete, disconnected, etc.

You’re thinking of April Jesus. This is December Jesus.

I am going to make some very broad strokes here. So no armchair quarterbacking me. I know it’s way more nuanced but I’m not writing an essay on Lemmy.

In general Western philosophies always have a “goal.”

I know you said it was a broad stroke, and that in general is that way, but I kind of disagree still. I think Western philosophy is about finding if we have a purpose and what is it, and many philosophers since Greek antiquity to today have answered they are skeptic of it existing or it being able to be known. From Pyrrho of Elis and Hegesias of Cyrene to Arthur Schopenhauer and Slavoj Žižek.

The word we are looking for is teleology (not to be confused with theology). It refers to finality, that there is a goal. Many philosophers did not subscribe to a teolology.

Your human life is to prove your worthiness.

Same thing as before.

You need to look back and atone for your past mistakes. You need to look forward so you can do the right things to be worthy. It is very little about being in the now.

I agree a little more with this, there are many Western philosophers preoccupied with ethics. But that’s why I think they were talking of different dimensions. It was not that existentially you should roam the past or future, that your mental activity should be there. It was about being responsible in the now for the future, and to be held accountable for your past. It was a morality thing, not a conscious/existential thing.

In this case tacos are the moment. So next time you’re eating a delicious taco. Spend that moment to be one with your taco. Concentrate on the smell. Then feel the texture as you pick it up. How the various colors interact with each other. Then as you bite off some, feel the textures in your mouth and how the flavors interact. Watch yourself, be aware of every time you chew. Remember there is no past there’s no future there is only tacos.

Hey! Go away with that mindful nonsense. If I do that, I spend too much time with a single bite and I cannot eat as much (/s).

I don’t know how to post images, but Google “Dinosaur Liberty Security” or “Dinosaur Freedom Security” and that’s what came to my mind.

I’m from the 90s and I’ve been catching some trends thanks to TikTok and YouTube. Exactly what you said, new videos and keep jumping to suggested videos. Also, read the comments, people often have recommendations (you can even ask and you’ll get some new musicians).

Historically, I’ve perceived Reddit as slightly left leaning, with strong pockets of conservatives.

Yes, in international subreddits. The national ones were often right leaning (e.g. r/Canada, r/Mexico).

I get it now. I don’t agree with your points.

you’re claiming that these killings are spontaneous and only coincidentally helps the incumbents or the party leadership positions maintain authority.

I don’t believe it benefits the party that today is dominant, not only because they are getting killed too but also because they are being accused of making Mexico violent and it is super important for them to prove that things are getting better.

This is not the same as saying that the killings are spontaneous, on the contrary, it is an unstable game of power grabbing because of very special circumstances in Mexico that allow this uncertainty of who is getting what in 2024. This in itself lets us see that there are powerful groups fighting and not a tyranny from the current government nor them only silencing opponents.

This isn’t normal. This doesn’t happen in other places of the world.

I don’t know about normal; it isn’t desirable, but perhaps it was to be expected. Why Mexico and not other countries? I think this is an oversimplification.

First, it does happen in other countries, but differently. Some have coup d’États, revolutions, extremist terrorism, etc. Of course if you compare Mexico to Germany, Germans are playing chess under the table. Compare Mexico to Arab countries, African countries, and even violent Latin American countries. Violence exists in many other places. Yet, secondly, you can only see similarities when comparing social circumstances, never mirrors. You won’t find another Mexico in its details because no other country has Mexico’s history. I repeat: it does happen in other countries, but differently. And that’s why what you said was too simple.

For this to not somehow be organized or orchestrated would be completely illogical, because then it would be occurring elsewhere as well.

Following the last part, no, this can perfectly be complex. ‘Heterogenous’ is the word that is coming to my mind.

To me, it’s more illogical to believe a single force is orchestrating this violence (which, again, is getting people from different groups killed) than to believe it is power grabbing from many sources. The first option even sounds a little conspiracy-theorish or paranoid, if I’m being frank.

It’s late so don’t mind me, but I didn’t get your point. They’re killing candidates from all factions, all parties. Perhaps different people are killing independently for different reasons. Mega corporations killing the candidates that want regulations on their use of water, deforestation, etc. Nestlé, Coca-Cola, and others are devastating the lands and I’m sure they’re profiting nicely from that and don’t want to stop. Organized crime. Corrupt politicians. It’s not simple (or clear) to me, why do you say it is?

Technically, Mexico has had only two presidents from a right-wing party. Before, they were from the centrist party. The current president is a very well known leftist.

The country was bombarded with religion for centuries, so maybe you are thinking of that, but even so, the majority support a version of religion that mixes a “social concern for the poor and political liberation for oppressed peoples” with spirituality. It is similar to the recent declarations of Pope Francis about Marxists and Christians having a common goal It is called liberation theology.

Also, Mexico tried to legalize drugs back in 1940. It was promoted by a psychiatrist that informed the government that substance abuse was a mental disorder, which was very progressive for the era. Here is the story.

Of course, if you dig deeper, you’ll know the United States basically coerced Mexico into criminalizing drugs again.

Around half the population still supports drug legalization, even after years of propaganda. The commenter below was shocked about abortion legalization. Abortion is legal in many places. Same-sex marriage is also legal, even in some more right-leaning states. A couple years ago, a transgender clinic with free care was opened in Mexico City. Similarly, free healthcare and many other welfare initiatives such as free education (including universities) are common and not negotiable for the average Mexican.

So, yeah, I guess you’ll find homophobic old people, religious nuts, or lately, U.S.-influenced right-wing supporters, but Mexico is overall progressive as I see it. Even historically:

Slave abolition was one of the first things Mexico did as an independent country, around 1810-1817. The first black president in 1829. Safe place for U.S. slaves to escape and live as free people during the 19th century. First native (indigenous) president in 1858. The Constitution has been protecting native populations’ rights since 1917. During the 20th century, there were big movements in favor of socialism (e.g., agrarian socialists called zapatistas, or students’ movements in the National Autonomous University of Mexico). The list goes on… The first woman president is probably happening this year.

I hope this puts things into perspective, and sorry for infodumping!

Totally! You explained it really well.

My partner and I are the lookie-loo shoppers. We often cover stores aisle by aisle. It’s entertaining for us for different reasons. We like to see what people are buying, especially things like books, clothes, etc. We like to talk about the products and the things that follow; for example, we start by noticing the variety of flavors in pets food and end up talking about animals, foods, etc. We like to learn about new products, as we are often out of the loop and it’s nice to find new gadgets or kitchen accessories this way. We try new things, like “try me” lotions or whatever. Overall, it is a fun experience.

I was enjoying it, but two things are getting tiring: the lack of social sciences and humanities, and especially the misogynistic ‘tone’ of some users.

From Wikipedia:

Polysexuality has been defined as “encompassing or characterized by many different kinds of sexuality”, and as sexual attraction to many, but not all, genders. […] Polysexuality is also considered to be another word for bisexuality however unlike bisexuals, polysexuals are not necessarily attracted to people of the same gender.

I think ‘polysexual’ fits. You like some genders (cis women, trans women, feminine-presenting people, AFAB NBs, etc.), but not all.

Unfortunately, women tend to want partners, men want caregivers.

Thank you. Nobody’s seeing that. All the comments saying the woman is mean, instead of talking about how irresponsible the man must be that he needs a reward system to do what he should be doing on his own* for his family.

*I’m not sure if it’s the right expression. I mean by his own volition and out of responsibility.

Edit: I won’t acknowledge the rest of your comment because, honestly, it got confusing.

Sure, the spouse that has to create a reward system so that the other person does their chores is the one in the wrong, not the spouse that apparently needs parenting. Also, marriage is a favor to the former, not something both want and benefit from (/sarcasm).

and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

Huh? Is this about obligatory alms/tithes or is it about any kind of help to others, or both?

I think that if the age of consent is gradual, the age difference allowed should too.

First scenario, two 15 year olds decide to start their sexual life together. They’re fully informed. Nobody is taking advantage. It’s very different to a second scenario where a 17 year old is dating a 36 year old.

It’s funny because the problem is usually described with terms these specific French philosophers used: power dynamics. It is too unbalanced. The adult has way more power than the teenager and that’s not healthy, it can even be dangerous.

I would argue that we should be careful with age differences until our early-mid twenties, even if the law gives us a free pass from our 18th birthday. But, anyway, yeah, in the second scenario the teenager is older than the first ones, so we’d assume that if the first ones were okay the second too, but the age difference matters IMHO.

I partially agree with you, but also with the rest here. Yes, as people, we should be united fighting against the elites which don’t let us live the life we deserve (because we are receiving less than we should considering our productivity, and because many problems can be solved already). We are all on a planet that we need to save, even if only for selfish reasons. We should be together. But the elites have seized the opportunity to divide us with ideologies such as economics, identity politics, etc. If they need an unfair war against a country to exploit it and extract its resources, they’ll say it’s about patriotism or security or something like that, and many people will believe it and support it. Just look how divided we are about current affairs.

The left usually goes against these interests. Thus the red scare, the fake leftists that only makes us look bad, etc. They need to disband the left, and they have an army willing to do so for free. Here’s where these opinions enter. As long as an elite, yes, but also all their supporters go against us and against basic ethical principles, we cannot sit and say: “people, do not trivialize wars on social media, it is not nice”, “oil is cool, but saving the planet is cooler”, etc.

I believe in stronger actions, for example, the sabotage people are doing against the shipping of weapons that are meant to kill civilians in Palestine or the blockages against deep sea mining. These are actions that can save lives without actually hurting others as the economical damages are not going against individuals but big institutions that can manage the losses.

I also believe in dialogue. I actually dislike how we stop listening to each other as leftists: how moderate, often liberal-leaning leftists censor radical leftists such as marxist-leninists (“tankies”) or gender critical feminists (“TERFs”), without listening to them. No, they do not necessarily promote hate and they have valid points that may need further exploration. That said, I believe in the censorship of hate speech, explicit hate speech like the videos circulating about how others deserve to die or deserve to suffer. That’s unacceptable, no matter the group of people you are talking about. Indeed! If we say that we need to kill white supremacists, it is no better than them saying they need to cleanse the population. Still, we need to keep their hate and all hate out of the normal discourse and we need to defend ourselves in case others turn to violence.

In a nutshell, it’s about defending the wellbeing of beings in the most peaceful and civil way possible. It is about defending ourselves while doing that, because the people in power and their supporters won’t often like it.

Do you want a crude example? Read about the people defending the wild life in Mexico. Politicians and organized crime want to profit off those lands. They rob lands from people, often indigenous people; they get into illegal or non-sustainable logging; they enlarge the black markets, hurting and endangering populations; they transform regions, affecting the whole ecosystem. There are people, usually biologists, who warn against this and dedicate their lives to the protection of the forests, rain forests, etc. They end up dead. It is very dangerous to protect the monarch butterflies, the wolves, the big cats… Isn’t that ridiculous and terribly sad?

This is how it has been for a long time. Speak words of freedom in the kingdom and you might lose your head. Stop the machines and they’ll justify killing you. I mean, read Lord Byron’s defense of the luddites and then think about how they dismissed it…

Personally, I do not see rightists as my enemies, I see them as people tragically going against others’ and their own interests. The ones that are in power are blinded by it, and the ones that only follow are blinded by hope: “Someday I’ll be rich, if only I defend the status quo a little longer”.

My personal enemies are the horrid ideas, feelings, and values that accompany most of these acts I disapprove of. Selfishness, vanity, etc. Some people, many people (I am no exception), naturally tend to them in varying degrees, and I can only feel disappointment for the number of people that embrace them. That leads me to my secondary enemies, the things that make people do not defy them. Cowardice, apathy, dogmatism, etc.

Edit: And I do not have final answers. I do not know if we are in need of a revolution, a reform, an extinction, time… I know very little.

I am very sorry you got caught in one of my rambling, ranting comments. My point is that it is not a situation in which two sides are equally wrong, but a bunch of the population that sides with the tyrants you yourself allude to in your comment. People who still deserve our respect; that respect doesn’t mean passivity when they actively affect others.

You are absolutely right and we need to fight against corruption and many other things, and that’s why I consider myself a leftist: you name it whatever you like. These are my attempts at rationality and correctness, and, while I might be a minority in the details, I know I am in good company in the broader ideals. Many of us disagree in a very trivial way… Sorry, and thank you for reading this far.

Have you heard the “I don’t suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it” quote? They meant it, huh?