This says… something… about you. But I couldn’t tell you what.

Ok, go talk to random people in the street and ask them if they are okay giving up electricity in their homes for several hours each day in the name of stopping climate change. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Ok, sure. Go to your city council meeting and suggest implementing rolling blackouts in the town to combat climate change. See how far you get.

Well, I’m pro renewables and pro nuclear, but anti NG. Accounting for methane released into the atmosphere during extraction, transport, refining, and storage, it has about the same carbon impact as coal. And if shipped across the ocean in the form of liquid natural gas (likely for you, since a large proportion of the worlds NG reserves are in the good ol’ US of A), it is worse. You might as well just keep old coal plants running.

The actual solution (as pointed out elsewhere in the thread) is dynamic pricing. And a carbon tax. When people and businesses receive price signals about the expense of using electricity at any given time, they will naturally use more or less of it when it is more plentiful / more scarce.

As noted before, this will probably present a far larger barrier to most people than a small fee. You can already host an event like this in any given public park with no permit necessary. However, most people have a spare $5 but are highly reluctant to embarrass themselves in the town square - so charging a fee for privacy is more inclusive.

Yes, more or less everything involves money. This is like when someone says “ugh, X isn’t political”, and then someone else points out that no, everything is political. If you want something that can’t just be picked up off the ground, then someone, somewhere is paying for it, in some way.

The “gas” in “gas powered turbines” is natural gas - aka, a fossil fuel, aka, the thing causing climate change.

It does, when that additional expense is the difference between being able to buy the home and not being able to. Or when it makes a difference in a developer’s decision to build or not build a home.

… are you a fucking idiot? Any government official that suggested that would immediately be fired, and any politician would never get a single vote for the rest of their lives.

Exactly. You are limiting your ability to make things happen if you insist on making it free. If you just charge a fee, you can use it to pay a venue to host you.

I mean, make your own club. It’s as simple as finding a space to do it, inviting your friends, and putting up some posters or whatever.

But finding a space could be difficult. Many people find dancing, or especially learning to dance, in public spaces like parks to be uncomfortable. So you’ll need somewhere private, out of the public eye. You might be able to find space in a local school, library, community center, or church - but these places rarely seem to have a good vibe. Usually they have bad lighting, modernist architecture, lackluster sound systems (if they have any at all), and/or an odor that isn’t bad so much as it is vaguely off-putting. And just generally, they aren’t the sort of places where a vibrant young person wants to go to have a good time. So you probably need to find a private venue, like a bar with a spare back room. The bar might want to host you as a form of passive advertising and a way to get people in the door - but just as easily, they may want you to pay a fee for the inconvenience you cause them and for the use of their space. And fair enough - after all, they still need to make their rent.

Then, you have to actually put on the event. Picking out music, getting a good vibe going, dealing with assholes and telling them to go away, getting the word out, responding to emails, finding people to cover for you when you just can’t make it this week, etc. At which point you realize that you are essentially working a part time job, so you might as well get paid.

Impossible to enforce

But you can start by assuming women mostly don’t bring things up unless they’re really bad, because they put themselves at risk by doing so.

Ideally I wouldn’t assume anything based on such broad generalities. I would base my understanding on my understanding of the person making the claim. If the woman making the claim has shown tendencies in the past of lying and starting drama, I will likely do nothing, and will sort of quietly wander away to find another conversation because I don’t want to be involved in whatever shit she is starting now. Though I will also probably never be present for this conversation, since I probably would have removed this person from my life a long time ago and would actively avoid interacting with them, because it is an unpleasant experience. If I know the woman to generally be trustworthy and straightforward, I will say “wow, that sucks, let me know if I can do anything to help you feel better”.

I’ve known several women who confessed to me that they’d been sexually assaulted in the past. My response, more or less, was “wow, I’m sorry that happened to you. Let me know if you want to talk about it more, or if there is anything I can do to help.” And that is the extent of what I can do, since I have no idea who the people who assaulted them are. It’s not like I can just bust down some random guy’s door and beat him up.

And you can (continue to) shut down the more “minor” conversational shit that normalizes and perpetuates that mindset.

Such as…? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I assume you are talking about the conversations where guys say things like “no means yes, yes means anal” - which, again, I have never, ever been involved in. Like, ever. I don’t know who these people are or where they hang out. I infer they exist based on second hand accounts if others. But they seem to not like me, and don’t invite me to their parties.

When my male friends and I talk about women, our conversations usually go: ugh, why don’t girls like me?; ugh, my girlfriend is being distant and standoffish; ugh, my girlfriend broke up with me. I’ve never had a friend speak poorly of women in general, say they “deserve” anything as a group, or anything like that.

So, again, this seems like a big case of “I can’t do anything about this, so I’m not going to worry about it.”

I believe nutrition is quite simple: Eat real food. That will get you 90% of the way there, if you are an average person who just wants to be healthy.

If men want to get rid of the collective suspicions they need to act to prevent their own sexism and misogyny and those of other men!

I’m fine with the collective suspicion, since I know that (a) the suspicions are misplaced for me personally, and this will be obvious to anyone spending any time around me, and (b) because this is a dominant attitude only among women who are chronically online, who I wouldn’t want to spend time with anyway.

So, sorry, your shame-blackmail won’t work on me. If you are going to other me, putting me on the other “side”, then please provide a reason for helping you that will benefit me personally. After all, why would I want to help someone who sees me as an enemy?

Right. As a guy, I’ve never received a nude pic of a girl from a friend. I’ve never had a friend tell me that he sends girls dick pics. I’ve never been in an online community where photos of women are traded like what is described above - I wouldn’t even know where to start looking for this. I’ve never heard about anyone I know having their pictures shared, or anyone I know sharing pictures of someone else in an unethical way. This is quite simply a social sphere that I am completely excluded from. The idea that I have any responsibility or capacity to police this kind of behavior is ludicrous - what am I supposed to do? Talk to my friends and say “So, look at any unethical porn lately, bro?” Or spend my time seeking out toxic communities so I can debate them/report them, instead of going outside and having a life?

Giving a shit about recycling is mentally taxing. One of the worst parts of being poor is the mental strain of uncertainty inherent in your life which makes long-term planning and delaying gratification increasingly difficult. Any ounce of willpower you have needs to be spent maintaining or improving your situation, not used up doing things that have literally no impact on your life.

This is why veganism is typically seen by poor people as an extravagant virtue signal of wealthy people. Poor people may choose to eat fewer animal products because they are expensive - but few would turn down a free well cooked steak. Caring about animal rights or the environment is something only the wealthy have the mental bandwidth to do - telling a poor person that they should do these things only serves to alienate them.

If specific ingredients are a problem, we should study those ingredients. If specific combinations or characteristics are a problem, we should study those combinations. Don’t throw out the baby (healthy ultra processed foods) with the bathwater (unhealthy ultra processed foods).

We’ve been doing that for years, and the result on public health has been fad diets and “superfoods”. Focusing on ultra processed foods specifically calls out the obvious problem - we were significantly healthier before these foods were invented, and are less healthy after. The categories for processed-ness are necessarily arbitrary, since we have to decide what constitutes “processed”, and so sometimes relatively healthier food ends up appearing “worse” than less healthy food. But the end result is the headline above, which can be pointed to the hundred billion times it must be pointed to, in order to convince people that they should not eat a diet consisting of Doritos, mountain dew, slim jims, and ice cream.

Rachel, who is in her 30s and lives in London, met her partner on the popular dating app Hinge, and was struck by his generosity. He insisted on buying her gifts and giving her cash to spend. She thought her now ex-partner was a “normal, decent guy”.

Yeah…

Yeah, on paper I’m a mgtow. After about 2 seconds I was like “wait, these people are losers.” Turns out I’m a relationship anarchist.