By the time Chris Pratt got married, to an actress that was much more famous than him, he had already been cast in a bunch of roles, including his breakout role in Parks and Rec.
Yes, networking helps, but applying the nepotism label to all forms of networking (including meeting and marrying a celebrity) dilutes the label to near meaninglessness.
The human brain is susceptible to engagement bait. There are different flavors of bait, but some of the ones that are most effective need to simultaneously avoid triggering moderation (whether automated or human) while jumping out of the containment of only people who subscribe to the person or place where it was created.
So a post that is sexy might encounter too much resistance to sharing from people's NSFW filters (and reluctance to share nsfw content with people they actually know in real life).
A post that is interesting or funny or fun might get spread around, but is hard to replicate and takes a lot of effort to get right.
That leaves posts that trigger people's responses, whether they feel compelled to correct a grammatical error or angrily correct a factual error, or vociferously defend an idea that isn't being treated fairly. The comments themselves breed engagement as the commenters then interact with each other, and the commenters keep coming back to the same post to see whether new comments have been posted. Anger and pedantry are the types of bait that work best on most platforms.
None of this is inherently corporate or profit-motivated, so it would be naive to assume that only for-profit corporate platforms would have that stuff.
Just to point out I've only commented once in the thread above, I'm not the same person you were originally replying to.
Whoops, my bad. That does fundamentally change the nature of your comment, I apologize. My criticism was off base.
My broader point is that I am fully aware of the fact that many feminist organizations intentionally and strategically attack problems that affect men motivated out of a bigger picture issue that primarily affects women. And that many feminist people and organizations choose to take on multiple issues, only some of which might be considered feminist causes. But as a whole, I think it's unfair to insinuate that feminists (either individuals or organized into organizations) don't care to devote resources to helping men. And that's the main thrust of what I'm getting at.
Are you asking feminists to stop helping men or something? I'm describing how feminist groups and organizations help men. The organizations they work for usually don't have gendered names, and even when they do, they tend to take on specific causes regardless of gender, because those causes are themselves important for elevating women's status towards equality.
The ACLU's Women's Rights Project, co-founded and operated by prominent feminist Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did some big work in the 70's, and their goal was to elevate women by fighting for gender equality, including (and perhaps especially) when men were the victims of discrimination. Craig v. Boren was probably the most famous example of their work on that front, where the Supreme Court struck down a higher drinking age for men in Oklahoma.
So it seems to me that you're pivoting away from "but why don't they help men" argument to fussing about the way they name themselves. The name is the name. I'm a feminist, I volunteer for feminist organizations, for important causes for women, in a way that often helps men directly.
The anti vaxx movement was a conspiracy by big pharma to get people to stop taking the cheapest way to prevent disease, so that they can profit on the expensive ways to treat those easily preventable diseases.
These are scenarios that exclusively benefit men.
Yes, and I'm saying there are prominent feminist voices advocating for specific approaches and helping boys navigate the world, with only incidental benefits to women (who avoid being abused by those men). They're publishing books, running workshops, providing online resources for these specific things.
Feminist organizations dedicated to protecting women's reproductive rights are also distributing condoms that go on penises, even for men fucking other men.
Maybe they are motivated by the "knock on" effects on women, but it's very clear that feminist organizations and advocates are doing things to address problems that only affect men and boys.
I am posing the hypothetical question
I'm talking about actual things we're doing, not just hypotheticals.
I'm mainly arguing against a narrow view where addressing problems is thought in terms of the demographic identity of the recipient of that help. Organizations try to tackle problems, and trying to gender code the problems and solutions I think is counterproductive.
I'm slowly coming around to the theory that people on Lemmy are less happy than much of the rest of the internet because a disproportionate number have been aggrieved by mod actions on reddit subreddits. Many of them probably have a point, but I wonder how many of them were actually banned for being wet blankets nobody wanted around anymore.
I would argue it's not really even a solid overlap with Christianity. Puritan ideals are a small subset of the overall Christian world, and might not even be the most relevant religiously centered ideals affecting our society today (prosperity gospel folks might be more politically relevant in America these days, and they are basically saying the opposite, that their religion offers promises of riches now in this life, and Catholics don't seem as likely as Protestants to see toil as virtue).
Perhaps more importantly, there is a strong overlap with some cultural forces in distinctly non-Christian societies, like in India and China and Singapore and stuff, where people actively preach a philosophy where people must suffer in order to develop their characters and earn happiness/prosperity. I have had colleagues from Singapore (both Chinese and Indian heritage) who talked about this kind of stuff a lot, and it's consistent with some of the LinkedIn nonsense that I see and make fun of on a regular basis. I think the concept and the origins of these ideas are pretty far removed from Christianity.
Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men
Yes.
One of the big ones that has been in active discussion is toxic masculinity (the social expectation that men act a certain way and more importantly that men not act a certain way), which has detrimental effects on boys and men, who in many cases grow up emotionally stunted and unable to cope with their emotions in a productive, safe, and healthy way. These feminist organizations are big on how to raise boys, how to talk to men about emotions, and other topics that relate to the mental and emotional health of boys and men.
In a related push, a big portion of pushing openness in certain spaces also has the effect of becoming more welcoming for certain men. Trying to make veteran spaces, science/technology/engineering spaces, sports/fitness/athletic spaces, business networking spaces, and other traditionally male-dominated spaces more open to women is often about opening things up to a lot more men, as well, especially men who don't fit the stereotypes of those spaces.
For example, sometimes a gym that is intimidating to women can also be intimidating to lots of men. Recognizing and addressing the factors that drive away women also have the intended purpose of reducing barriers that we know affect men, as well.
I'm fully, unabashedly feminist. I'm also a straight cis man who fits a lot of male stereotypes (playing and watching sports, lifting weights, a career path through multiple male dominated professions), who recognizes that society leaves behind a lot of men who don't fit this mold, and I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children), actively parent my son in a way that I hope will help him grow up to be a good man living a good life with fulfilling relationships with those around him, etc.
There's no separating feminism from broader societal gender roles and expectations. And the things I do for my daughter are closely overlapping with the things that I do for my son.
Thats good! I wish I could be more minimalist but im not. Im a maximalist for sure lol.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. Mine isn't minimalism. I'm not denying myself anything that I want. Or even owning less stuff or spending less money. Mine is just steering things into what I like rather than what I don't care all that much about.
And for my preferences, that maximum for my own happiness is going to come from living in a dense city with a lot going on.
own a couple acres and a few cars
On the flip side, plenty of us don't want to own acres or cars. None of that sounds appealing to me.
We should all figure out what is actually important to us, and where that stuff tends to be cheaper, relative to what we can earn in that place.
I like a variety of nice restaurants, a good butcher shop, good bakeries, a good coffee shop/roaster, farmers markets, and other specialty food sellers within walking (or at least biking) distance of my home. I like the option of seeing live music and standup comedians, preferably also within walking distance of my home. I like having multiple playgrounds and parks and libraries and even museums within walking distance of my home. I like that my kids can walk to and from most of these places, too.
So I pay a shitload to live in a place like that. It comes with tradeoffs: it costs more, we have less space, we can only have one car in our household. But that stuff isn't important to me (we have money to spare, we don't like too much space, we hate driving).
Most importantly, though, the thing I like about living in a high salary, high cost of living city is that when set aside 10% of your income for savings and 10% of your income for travel, those are types of things where a dollar is a dollar, so that 10% of a larger number goes further. Someone who lives in a big house on a big plot of land in the Midwest still has to pay the exact same amount that I would when they're getting a hotel room in London or an Airbnb at a ski town in Colorado.
As an example, I salt my salads fairly precisely. After all, the word "salad" itself derives from the Latin word for "salted."
But there's also like literally no way that overeating a salad would be unhealthy for me, a person who doesn't have hypertension (and who sweats a lot of salt so that I need a higher than normal sodium intake). I'm going to salt my salads as I see fit, and use the right amount of acid and maybe a source of umami for flavor, as well. I want my salads to be delicious, because I have basically zero fear that I'll overeat them to the point of adverse health effects.
For plenty of other foods, I'm basically controlling portions before I plate anyway. If I'm at a restaurant, the portions are tightly controlled and I control what portions I eat by simply controlling what portions I order. If I'm cooking at home, I'm not accidentally meal planning for the week but running out of food on Wednesday. Everything I eat should be delicious, and if there's a problem with overeating, it's because I failed to control portions before it was placed in front of me.
To borrow an analogy from Homer's The Odyssey, I prefer Odysseus's strategy of tying himself to the mast and hearing the sirens anyway, over the crew plugging their ears and never hearing them in the first place.
Everyone can take their own approaches, but my own strategies for portioning already make it so that making the food less delicious wouldn't do much for myself.
Nope, I reject the idea that only emotionally supportive people are deserving of love. These aren't binary traits, and many of aren't as good at providing comfort in emotional situations for our own reasons:
I know I'm good at providing encouragement when things are going well (gunning for a promotion, trying to win a sporting competition, trying out stand up comedy for the first time), while being less able to provide emotional support when things are sad for other people (death of loved one, illness, other loss, plain old anxiety or depression). I'll try to make it up with the other stuff (mostly doing things for people, sometimes just being present), but I'm not going to pretend that I'm actually a shoulder that anyone would choose to cry on. And yet I have enriching and fulfilling relationships with plenty of friends, family, and a wife who doesn't actually ask that of me, who knew this about me long before we got married, and occasionally joked about my robotic ways. Our kids go to her when they want to cry about something, and they come to me when they want me to take some action that would alleviate the issue that made them sad in the first place (first aid, fixing broken shit, simply being hungry). I'd go as far as to say we make a great team and family unit.
I am who I am, and I still deserve (and receive) love. I think the way you look at things is too narrow and would condemn like the 75% of people who are bad at this stuff to a life forever alone, which is not very reasonable or empathetic of you.
There are qualities about myself that I really like to be present in the people in my life (including my wife, and previous partners I've had): smart, empathetic, funny, fun, interesting, charismatic, confident.
There are also qualities in myself that I need to actively rely on others in my life to help me mitigate, and that I don't like to bring into my own life: disorganized, absent minded, easily distracted. I like for the people in my life to be the opposite. Also in terms of physical attraction I am a man who is attracted to women, so I want the "opposite" of myself in that respect, too.
And there are qualities that I don't have, that I really like for my partner to have: kind, emotionally supportive, spontaneous.
There are qualities about myself that I don't much care one way or another whether my partners or my friends have: extroverted, athletic, technically minded.
And when talking about actual interests and hobbies and background and experience and knowledge, there's a lot that I like to see that are true of myself, and a lot that I like to see that aren't true of myself.
Ultimately, a partner is going to have some overlapping things with yourself, some differences, and the question you have to ask yourself is whether you're a good fit for each other. That answer is going to depend a lot on different things.
Be someone you want to date.
Got myself some big floppy boobs, now what
A lot of the glass bottle companies also recycle the bottles, so that you can swap your existing glass bottle for a new bottle and they'll take your old one back. It adds a little bit of logistical complication to the stores that deal with it, but it could be useful if you're really trying to reduce plastic usage and you drink a lot of milk.
Sodium makes food more palatable. You will find yourself eating less calories simply because the food isn’t as good.
Eh, I don't love this one. The idea of intentionally making food shittier so that you enjoy it less is never gonna work for me.
In my late 20's, I managed to cut to probably the lowest body fat percentage of my life.
I learned which foods I found to be satisfying despite a lower calorie count, and vice versa. In my case, it's water, fiber, and protein that are important for feeling full even when I'm not eating a lot of calories. That means lots of soups, lots of green vegetables, lots of lean meats and cheeses, and some member of the legume family in almost every meal (beans and lentils, and also things like green beans, peas, peanuts). It also meant a dramatic reduction in sugars, especially in beverages, and a big reduction in alcohol consumption.
I started running a lot. Some people say you can't outrun a bad diet, but running 25 miles (40km) per week goes a really, really long way and buys you a big buffer that allows you a few high calorie meals here and there.
I stopped keeping snacks on hand. Almost everything in my house required some degree of prep or cooking to eat.
Many of those I've kept up in the 20 years since, but I've re-added whole grains and fruit into my previously low carb diet because they have a good satiety to calorie ratio (probably because of the fiber). And I've stopped running but also tolerate a higher body fat percentage and higher overall weight in support of a significantly more muscular build (and a lot more measurable strength). Finally, I do keep certain ready to eat foods in the house, but mainly because I have kids and need to feed them without spending all my time on that task.
Most of the stuff known as AI in the current environment is really, really powerful inference engines. And understanding the limits of inference (see for example Hume's Problem of Induction) is an important part of understanding the appropriate scope of where these tools are actually useful and where they're actively misleading or dangerous.
So, take the example of filling in unknown details in a low resolution image. We might be able to double the number of pixels and try to fill in our best guesses of what belongs in the in-between pixels that weren't in the original image. That's probably a pretty good use of inference.
But guessing what's off the edge of the picture is built on a less stable and predictable process, less grounded in what is probably true.
When we use these technologies, we need domain-specific expertise to be able to define which problems are the interstitial type where inferential engines are good at filling things in, and which are trying to venture beyond the frontier of what is known/proven and susceptible to "hallucination."
That's why there's likely going to be a combination of things that are improved and worsened by the explosion of AI capabilities, and it'll be up to us to know which is which.