We need someone that will use every tool at their disposal to stop trump.
Biden has shown time and time again, that’s he’s just not willing to do that.
Stopping trump is more important than Biden, if he won’t fight, and he won’t get out of the way, and the party won’t force him to…
It’s time to ask why we still support the party. The voters are the irreplaceable part, not the party.
and expecting your partner to kill for you.
Some questions are hypothetical or even rhetorical
And honestly on a deeper level there are reasons for women to suddenly go down these hypothetical scenarios related to safety, on a fairly regular basis.
There’s just too much context and subtlies that we can’t know for anyone to give a 100% answer on if a reaction like this is warranted.
I just really liked the idea that OP thought they were exaggerating the timeline with that, when they were still waaaaaay off on how baked in that behavior really was.
Modern life makes a lot more sense when you realize we really weren’t built for this shit. On an evolutionary timescale we went from taking a shit while walking like a horse to Star Trek in an afternoon.
It makes it a lot easier to let shit go instead of assuming the other person is fucking with you intentionally. Which ironically is another thing baked into our instincts. It’s safer to think someone you don’t know is a threat and is acting maliciously. Now a days it’s maladapted into road rage shootings because someone forgot to signal for a merge.
I wouldn’t judge someone who shows up to a campground at 430 am too harshly…
They’re probably running on pure lizard brain at that point.
Like, depending on your definitional of rational, there was/is a reason for this behavior, but it’s not like someone intentionally decides to do it. It’s just autopilot.
A lot of what we do is just autopilot and rationalizing it later. Shits crazy interesting, but we can’t really study it because it’s not ethical to just cut people’s brains in half for no reason other than to gain knowledge. And there was only a brief period it was a valid medical treatment for things like epilepsy.
Sperry performed another similar experiment in humans to further study the ability of the right hemisphere to recognize words. During that experiment, Sperry asked volunteers to place their left hand into a box with different tools that they could not see. After that, the participants saw a word that described one of the objects in the box in their left field of view only. Sperry noted that most participants then picked up the needed object from the box without seeing it, but if Sperry asked them for the name of the object, they could not say it and they did not know why they were holding that object. That led Sperry to conclude that the right hemisphere had some language recognition ability, but no speech articulation, which meant that the right hemisphere could recognize or read a word, but it could not pronounce that word, so the person would not be able to say it or know what it was.
In his last series of experiments in humans, Sperry showed one object to the right eye of the participants and another object to their left eye. Sperry asked the volunteers to draw what they saw with their left hand only, with closed eyes. All the participants drew the object that they saw with their left eye, controlled by the right hemisphere, and described the object that they saw with their right eye, controlled by the left hemisphere. That supported Sperry´s hypothesis that the hemispheres of brain functioned separately as two different brains and did not acknowledge the existence of the other hemisphere, as the description of the object did not match the drawing. Sperry concluded that even though there were no apparent signs of disability in people with a severed corpus callosum, the hemispheres did not communicate, so it compromised the full function of the brain.
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/roger-sperrys-split-brain-experiments-1959-1968-0
Eh.
It could be just her going thru possible consequences out loud. Maybe intentionally to drive the point home about what could have happened.
Like, this is some real shit that women do always need to be aware of, and men just never fucking think about, because we don’t have to.
OP could live in a super sketch area where this level of vigilance is warranted and this shit could be going thru her head.
Like from her POV OP didn’t take the risk serious enough to meet her, if he’s not willing to do that, her mind is running thru where the line is on what he would do. You zero into that by asking big questions. And again, it could be to try and set in the possible consequences.
Like, her wanting to know what level of commitment he has to her safety. I doubt it was extrajudicial executions in her mind, and more Liam Niessons style rescue as a rhetorical device.
For a woman a partner who values their security and safety is important both on an instinctual and sadly still practical level. They have a lot more threats then the average dude will ever think about, especially when young and in the dating stages of life. Even married men sometimes don’t learn about it till later when they have kids their responsible for.
That’s legitimately not gaslighting.
And gaslighting is 100% real thing, but I always think of this Rick and Morty clip now when someone brings it up:
Instinctual survival habits.
If you asked them why, they likely couldn’t give you an answer, or they’d rationalize one on the spot without realizing it.
We have millions of years of evolution telling us it’s better to be grouped up to sleep, and just a couple generations at most for recreational camping etiquette.
Instincts will always wins that battle
things that people would find fulfilling and choose to do irrespective of what incentives may or may not be on offer
Again, people already do that for free…
Just with people they choose to.
So either you’re advocating for sex slaves who feel obligated to do so with anyone, or it’s just still normal sexual/romantic activities.
So. In your eyes…
Are they having sex with everyone that asks?
Or are they only having sex with people they want to for no money, like literally every other human?
Because the more you talk, the more it’s feeling like you want a society with public sex slaves.
If there’s no sex, why are you calling them sex workers? In your example, it’s just sympathy dates?
Seriously, none of what you’re saying makes sense. And I know this is a sub for ideas that aren’t thought out… But still bro
There’s also just the personal fulfillment aspect,
Yeah, that’s the reason lots of people have sex for no money…
Like, if there’s no money changing hands, it’s not a free prostitute, it’s just someone willing to have sex with you
It doesn’t make any sense to still call them a prostitute.
What?
A prostitute that isn’t paid…
Isn’t really a prostitute are they?
I mean, probably, yeah that’s a safe bet.
But I meant you replied to me and said one thing, and someone else replied to me saying the exact opposite.
But yeah, you seem to know what you’re talking about and I was curious. So thanks for answering my questions.
The two main Haredi (Ultra-orthodox) parties are significant part of Netanyahu’s coalition, and they have always had a disproportionate power compared to the Haredi population because almost all Haredi voters vote for them.
100% not trying to be a dick, because I appreciate the insight.
But is there a typo in there?
Or are you saying that the population will always just vote for the party because of shared religious beliefs…
Even though the party acts against those beliefs?
Like, I’m not trying to argue if that’s logical. I’m American, we have far right abrahmic extremists too that unironically support trump despite him pretty much doing the opposite of their religious guidance at every chance. No judgement on that, I’m not asking you to defend them.
I’m just asking if I’m understanding you right about what’s going on. Because I don’t understand how the Ultra Orthodox party can have “disproportionate power” over their own voting base.
Except in the context that they just vote for whoever their religious leaders tell them to without question or thought.
But also, a lot of shit has gone down since 2016… Those numbers might not be up to date
The vast majority of Hareidi Jews are Zionist
So as a larger community, they’re hypocritical and support the genocide in Gaza.
But some fringe members are actually non-violent and against the genocide of their neighbors?
That makes sense.
But the other person just claimed the opposite:
Most ultra-orthodox Jews are actually anti-zionists
Which is what confused me.
I’m confused…
Are they a politically powerful group like the Associated Press says?
Or a small minority with no political power like a random social media account just told me?
Military service is compulsory for most Jewish men and women in Israel. But politically powerful ultra-Orthodox parties have won exemptions for their followers to skip military service and instead study in religious seminaries.
So…
Their religious beliefs prevents them from having military service…
But not supporting a genocide…
And they can still violently attack people?
Wouldn’t they benefit from more people?
The wealthy win when there’s more workers than work.
Historically the greatest gains in workers rights and the times we make the most gains against wealth inequality is when there isn’t a surplus of workers.
I mean, they’d be pretty much like real chickens.
Chicken rules are just prison rules.
You pick the biggest one, and punt it across the yard. Then it attacks the second biggest one and you’re done.
If you let one of them attack you first, then the rest are going to want to see how they measure up.
It looks stupid but is insanely effective.
The bobs helps pick out movement, once they pick out prey, they have laser focus and stop bobbing.
If you don’t think they’re similar, watch a video of a chicken hunting a mouse. It could be a scene out of a very low budget Jurassic Park.
Edit:
Randomly came across a relevant video
It doesn’t do what it should.
The point of the party is supposed to be long-term strategy and putting the platform over any one person.
When people talk about what the DNC should be doing, it’s not some “gotchya” to point out that they’re not doing their job and leadership needs replaced.
It’s just proving their point