ChaosDegenerate

I'm totally ignorant in all of that, but for me it just looks like out of sudden (historically) we have way too many males. They used to be killed during hunting, wars, competition with other males. Since 1945 we haven't had that. Men became not as hot commodity. This is the motor of the current social changes, isn't it?

For example: only 40% of all Homo Sapiens Sapiens males that have ever lived were able to have offspring. Compared to 80% females.

Please keep in mind, I said socio-economic status. But, homeless looking, constantly drank, smelling of urine Charles Bukowski had plenty of young, attractive and willing lovers. My point being exactly his high socio-economic status. We're talking about one of the best American poets. How many of these you get to meet? Hey, he might even write a poem about feeling he has for you if he likes you. That's what was so damn hot about the guy. Not money. With no money at all, his status was extremely high. I'm not pushing this vulgar simplistic idea here that women are all about money. They are after men who are really, really good in their niche. Even when the niche doesn't provide any money. It's about status they're after. This usually translate into money, but not always. Bukowski was dirt poor. With high status.

EDIT: grammar

Of course they did. So that they can work. But don't have too. Great deal if you ask me.

well, somehow the society at large has no problem with exactly opposite generalization: that women prefer to work over staying home with their kids.

It is an individual matter, I agree. With most women definitely having the preference of staying at home. But for that the right partner is needed, i.e. one who provides enough resources for her and her kids. If this is not present she will go to work. We decided as a society to frame it different just not to face difficult truth, which is society becoming poorer. It's just so much easier to say that somehow nowadays women prefer working to following their maternal instinct.

As a man you are wired to compete with other males for resources to be brought to your partner and offspring. I'm sorry but this is just how it works. Women define male attractivness based on his socio-economic status. Of course if you don't want your wife (and other females and society at large) to look down at you, you will eventually go back to work and work your ass off. She on the other hand, can but she doesn't need to. It's not like you or pretty much anyone will look down at her for not working. Current social fashions aren't going to change five milion years of evolution of the species.

Yes, but also it's not like having maternal instinct wouldn't make this decision easier for you.

And keep in mind, statistics say than one of the divorce factors is husband making less than wife. From her perspective: this isn't sexy at all.

The thing with female workforce participation: isn't it just symptom of the society getting poorer. My wife worked her ass off. I was making about 130k / year. She was making about 60k / year. Then we not only moved from the US to Poland (where live is just so much cheaper). But I also started making about 330k / year. All the willingness to work evaporated on her part :-) Instead we have another kid. She stopped talking about work and started talking about having more kids. Of course, that's anectodal, but also common sense, isn't it?

My little theory is that while men still made enough money to support good life in the US (50s, 60s) most women just didn't want to work. If you can have a house, nice car, four kids, vacation home, 40 hour week, no credit card debt, no school debt, and all of that on carpenter salary -- why not to enjoy life instead of spending 50-60 hours at the office?

The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. It's sold to the society at large as something glamorous because -- what? They're going to tell the truth? Yeah, you need to work your ass off 50-60 hours a week, with credit card debt, student loan debt, two cars loan, etc, etc. just to be able barely make it to have two kids at 35 ? Because before that you need advanced degree or two. Actually both of you do... I mean how is that a better deal?

I can see that also from the reaction of my wife friends who stayed in the US working to basically help their husbands as one salary won't cut it. It's not like they wouldn't prefer to stay at home with kids. But, again, it's not like they have a choice.

yeah, but they will not attempt destroying them financially too. EU fines US companies as if it wanted to get rid of them from the market. Not like it'd like to just fine them.

Also, note, how during Trump presidency EU is so much more cautious with that. Cynic in me says that's the proof that it is and has always been political. US can go after VW, MB, BMW, Porsche, Siemens, etc. There is no way that no federal laws are violated with the scale od operations these companies have in the US. All it takes is skilled and ambitious US Attorney General on Trump orders. Look at Lufthansa. All they need to do, and there were gossips about it being implemented already, is to ban electronics on flights to the US due to "battery self-ignition risk". But exempt US based carriers. Remember customer is always right. And Germany's BEST customer (who also happens to provide military security) is the US. Some people in EU seem not to grasp this simple truth

It is funny how you think there is no corruption in Brussels. Of course it is there! The rules of the game are though that we don't touch our own Corporations. So Brussels will look the other way when VW cheats their customers in the US and Washington won't care when let's say Google has its way in EU. The real difference is that corruption is somehow legalized in the USA (a.k.a "lobbying") while it's not in the EU, so you will just not know about VW CEO hadling bags of money to Brussels unelected environnmental commissar.

I have no problem with the distinction you presented. The problem I have is with organizations like WHO that pathologize normal behaviors. In 2018 WHO not only added "sex" to their addiction list. They also added computer games. Not to mention "toxic masculinity" "disorder". So, these are now "well understood clinical destructive addictions" too? Because, hey, this is what clinical psychologists in places like EU use to diagnose "disorders" and "addictions". ICD is the name of the diagnostic book issued by WHO and yes, stuff like this was added by them in 2018 into the latest iteration of ICD-11. So if you happen to be more conservative than WHO would like you to be, don't be surprised to be labeled "computer games addict" (targeted specifically at males, somehow there is no "social media addiction" mentioned that would target females), "toxic masculinity disordered", "homophobic" too. They should change name to "clinical liberal ideology" or more honestly "New Middle Ages Crusaders" for all I care. This is not science anymore and I think ideologist running ideologies like "psychology" are on the collision course with majority of population. Actually have been for some time. Which we know from elections results in places like US (Trump), UK (Brexit), France (Le Pen), Germany (AfD), Eastern Europe, not to mention places where I don't think anyone pays attention to their left-invented disorders like Russia and China. Wondering how it will play out for them long term.

But hey, this is the risk you take when you decide to be more of an ideologist than scientist.

To add something here: everything is considered addiction nowadays: over-eating, sex, shopping, etc.

Not to derail the discussion but isn't it too much?

I'm under impression that today anyone who enjoys something more than we would like them to do so in immediately labeled an addict.

What will happen to New York Times when its running sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, etc? They will get sued.

As soon as we can start suing them for the content they provide the sooner they will find resolution to it.

The same way they will get sued if they censor content that might be deemed socially important.

Exactly my point. But for this to work, they need to be regulated by Government as utilities.

No one has the right to turn off electric grid on your house because they are "private company". No one has the right to turn off "running water" from your sink because they are "private company" and if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else or open your own. The same way, no one has right to censor me because they are "private company" and if I don't like it I can go ahead and open my own Youtube. They should be and will be regulated as utilities.

Freedom comes with responsibility. The idea that they are not responsible for the content (i.e. you can't hold Youtube/Google legally responsible for the content they have on their platforms) while at the same time they make profit on the very same content and can censor it as they see fit -- this is idiocy in its purest form.

We hold newspapers or TV station legally liable for the content they serve. This is fair. Situation in which they couldn't be sued for the stuff they air still making money on it -- that's the current situation with them. It's even worse because they can somehow censor the content they don't like for their own political reasons.

It's like with banks. Yes, we can make money. And yes when times are bad we can get money from the government/tax payers too. This is not freedom this is fascism.

Government should regulate Facebook, Google (Youtube), Twitter, etc. as utilities that they are. The current situation where the corporations aren't responsible for the content but can censor it is the best example of why they should be treated as utilities.

Graduating in Europe with Master's that cost me nothing, I always feel so bad thinking about the debt my coworkers who studied in the US have to repay.

It's just so wrong and stupid. On top of that I can always go back "home" to get free healthcare too.

US is (at times) so much better when you are an immigrant.

And then so many (who actually have student loans to repay and expensive healthcare to pay for) feel sorry for me because of discrimination (perceived only by them!)

Thank you for your reply. Granted that Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and all the others collect data on us. And this is used by the Government security agencies (i.e. NSA/CIA as described by Snowden) to spy on us -- as we all know now the agencies have backdoors to these Corporations enabled with stuff like 'secret rooms' (AT&T) common. In which case this is used to detect terrorism threats. Why state-operators with enormous funding, like let's say Iran or North Korea or Russia or China -- won't generate systems like this to make NSA/CIA job harder (if anything). If I were Iran state security institution planning, targeting and executing terrorist attacks against the US and their allies -- I would be very interested to do things like millions of email accounts sending millions of emails daily with trigger words like 'bomb', 'attack', 'death to america', etc, etc. So my real communication would be a drop in the ocean of similar-looking noise.

What is stopping these actors from doing just that?

I have wondered about this for long time and I'm just curious. If the whole 'terrorism threat' thing is real, we would see counter-actions like this done by terrorism sponsoring organizations or states. No?

Will these systems be prone to false data?

I.e. if an organization fighting for free speech would create software generating false personas who create false messages, and other events, would they know any better?

For example, it wouldn't be too hard to generate hundreds if not thousands of fake Facebook, Instragram, Airbnb, Coinbase, Uber, Gmail, Amazon, etc. accounts doing "stupid things". Like ordering stuff and canecelling orders right away. Like generating fake emails en masse with "trigger words" in millions a day. Like creating fake posts on Facebook warning of fake incidents like "15% of Uber drivers have serious mental issues".

The whole thing could be scripted and run on bots worldwide in millions. After some time, serious chunk of internet traffic would be fake. How would these companies know any better?