Contemplates existence

I’m not much of a porn consoomer, but I liked the behind the scenes commentary of this comment chain.

Many buyers are hoping for a market capitulation.

šãškė - somewhat like shash-keh, with the emphasis on the a.

She is sometimes naughty but also a very sociable cat.

I used to eat ridiculous amounts of them as a child because my family was growing a lot of them and they have not regained their appeal to me.

Now black currant is an amazing berry with a rich and underutilized flavour profile.

[‘a’] + [‘b’] = ‘ab’

Gets me every time.

I understood that reference.

Yes, but now their propaganda machine can say that they want to stop the war.

I am apologising for what Gražulis does in advance.

Same, but because I’ll make someone mad by posting.

You switch cause and effect, realism tries to describe the word as is and not as it should be and then bases policies on that.

It’s less of a linear relationship and more of a feedback loop. The more politicians buy into this political theory, the more effect it has on the world and vice versa.

yet the world is still made up of poker chips and superpowers.

Iran is a good example of being neither. There are also a bunch of non-state actors who challenge the status quo. Realism fails to explain Al Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS joining the poker table.

Commercial actors are also become more and more powerful and their interests often do not align with those of the state. Google and Meta have a higher revenue than several countries and is capable of influencing public opinion.

Realism fails to explain how all superpowers fall apart from within or from outside forces eventually. Where is the British Empire? Where is the Dutch Empire? Where are the Romans?

Of course the policies you choose based on realist principles can be used to increase your power as a country

It can also be used to lose your power, destroy your credibility and sabotage your economy. Realism also doesn’t take soft power into account. You can easily trade your soft power for hard power but it is very difficult to get soft power back.

(given the limitations of the natural anarchic state of international politics).

But international politics are governed by international law and various treaties. Just because some countries can break international law and get away with it, doesn’t mean that the law itself is meaningless.

As a Dutch person I accept that the US can decide to turn the Netherlands into a nuclear testing ground whenever it wants and there is nothing we can do about that, but given this fact we should still try to create a peaceful world.

You can do a lot about it, from petitioning other governments to cease diplomatic relations to terrorism. Even a small country, like the Netherlands, is a complex social system with it’s own interests and guiding principles and not just a chip in political games of giants.

Mearsheimer, Morgenthau and similar “political realists” are the main reason why the world is in such a messy state.

They dehumanise entire societies into poker chips to be traded between the superpowers, disregard their national interests and ignore history and non-european states when convenient.

Oviposition and similar fetishes are a thing.

First of all, ai bots will probably steal all kinds of information from people. And the money that is spent on them could be useful for so many more useful things. I would suggest to seek genuine connections or even go to chatrooms over bots, ai or otherwise.

Not to mention how dealing with bots might warp your ability to socialise. A lot of things that are acceptable to bots are unacceptable to real people. Some people use them to play out fantasy scenarios of non-consent, abuse, etc.

Having said all that, if somebody wants to play around with that stuff, it’s fine as long as it’s not your only way to socialise or seek intimacy. I remember The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker and it talked about how video games are not inherently bad and don’t make us more violent, but they take time away from us that we can use to do social things instead.

Depending on how hard it is for a person to socialise, a group hobby or even group therapy sessions might be the solution.

Point taken. But it might be a matter of degree of how strong a relationship is.

Despicable? I’m curious about where this line is, can you elaborate?

I don’t know specifically, but I think masturbating to a person you have formed a parasocial relationship with is close to that line.

Also, what is your attitude on people who have sex with many partners (with informed consent etc).

I do not condemn nor condone such behaviour, it might be against my personal moral compass, but as long as both sides know what they are doing it isn’t bad.

I wouldn’t mock a person for having parasocial relationships, but I would mock them for paying a lot of money to an OnlyFans model. I think that there is a spectrum of acceptable parasocial relationships and I am trying to draw a line where “ok” ends and “despicable” begins.

Yes, I agree that people you like online are not your friends and you should not defend them when they get called for their toxic behaviour.

You can’t really destroy an insurgency via military means. See: Iraq, Afghanistan.

I always wondered if it’s implied that she’s ugly or that the sailor will get in trouble with the captain.