Aurelius3's comments

His entire speech to Laertes was clear and actionable advice. And his advice to Ophelia was likely necessary for the time. Had no clue people thought him a fool until today.

Absolutely, as someone that got 10+ hours of sleep year round for multiple years in high school (early bedtime, early waking), the dread of having to sit in a class and learn horrendous nonsense was more of a motivation to sleep in then actual physical necessity. I suspect it's the case for many adolescents who see little value in secondary courses.

I can agree with this line of thought, however, I feel obliged to warn you where this supposed reality can lead and I want you to consider if this violates any other beliefs you may hold. Another poster mentioned that the English have a rather strong dislike of prescriptivism, I think this is true, although I only have anecdotal evidence for this. Following this I find that the English and there derivatives in America also have a strong belief in multiculturalism, or the idea that varying cultures/perspectives strengthens a group. I would say that in certain intervals these two cannot coexist. Taking the example of french Canadians, they are considered to be relatively intolerant compared to the rest of Canada when it comes to religion, culture, language, immigration, and other facets of multiculturalism in an attempt to protect themselves. Yet it was that same multiculturalist mindset that saved them when the English let off and accepted them into Canadian goverment, giving them many rights even above the rest of Canada. So you can see that the lack of defence against cultural change inevitably results in another culture with a more defensive nature taking ground... But if you attempt to fight back it wouldn't be multicultural of you... So you can see that these two beliefs conflict at certain extremes. Karl Popper would have considered this to be an example of the paradox of tolerance (And I would add intolerance, as too much language purity gets you into a situation where your parisian institute bans the word poggers).

With this in mind I find your purely relativistic idea that all languages are equal, or more importantly that we should treat them as all equal, as somewhat misguided, and in many ways supremacist (it is easy for the culturally dominant, in this case the english, to wave hands and act like everyone else is irrational for trying to protect their culture, when it is implicitly understood if they don't then English will swallow it whole).

The quality of spoken English goes down over time as well, and as far as I know the English language has no institute or governing body which attempts to regulate it. It seems to me that the languages erode regardless of the rules in place to become more convenient for people. It is a shame culturally but at the same time it is difficult to blame people for speaking conveniently. It will be interesting to see where this takes both languages in 50 to 100 years.

>Continuing with a warning: it was found that approximately 60% of people have previously broken off a relationship due to a kiss, possibly due to genetic incompatibility.

Source? Need to know just in case.

Possible reference to this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZvNHBdpxE

I suppose the problem is that in the abortion debate the pro life side believes the unborn fetus is being forced to live (or rather not live) according to another belief system. It's a matter of perspective I guess.

>They didn't do much colonization because they were too busy fighting wars with each other

No, nearly every one of the countries I listed had simply no intention or means to colonize effectively at a profit, has nothing to do with preoccupation with continental wars.

> Also something that should not be easily forgotten or ever forgiven is the missionary work by religious groups

Again, all of the countries I mentioned had very little if not null participation in this, and yet to varying degrees they are being punished for it...

(Relatively) Low rates of foreign immigration despite ageing population, strong central goverment with the intention of weakening external and internal influences (See Uyghurs / western chinese territories for an example of internal influences, for external influences the great firewall is an obvious one, but there are many others), and third a general ethno-nationalist mentality from many, but not all Han chinese, encouraged by the central state and the general culture.

Many did, but many did not, entirety of eastern europe (minus Russia), germany, nordics, balkans, and central european states had no history of colonization or very little, and even then it was not in the regions most associated with migration to europe. Only things besides colonization that come to mind are wars in the middle east, and every country I listed besides germany is too small to matter in that.

>You cannot influence without being influenced.

Why not? China has massive influence in many countries, and they seem to retain a lot of their culture while suppressing any internal change/dissent. It would seem to me that many European countries have simply decided they would like to be influenced for whatever reason, not that they are compelled to by some universal rule.

It started out as a pc gaming type thing, so yeah, most of it is men, but the choice of server matters and they have expanded and rebranded a lot. If you are going on political servers it's already not worth it and you missed the point with discord, stick to small servers made by friends, people to play games with, or communities dedicated around 1 thing like open source projects or some specific media, etc. Once servers become too general or inclusive the system breaks, but even then on large servers (political or not), 4chan is not tame in comparison.

Once you give your data away no regulation can keep it safe, it is already compromised the second it is given.

Source on this? I heard they banned microbeads in toothpaste, does this remove all plastics or is there more?

The question is complicated. On the one hand you claim that in the west certain people are pushed away from certain fields, whereas others have claimed that in more egalitarian countries people are actually pushed into certain fields against their will. In my opinion, as someone that has seen both eastern europe and the west, I tend to agree with the latter idea, as I have personally witnessed large social pushes towards equality in the west, alongside a highly capable female demographic that achieve well in schools, it dosen't add up to me that women in the west are being pushed out of these programs, they simply prefer others. In comparison I see the same high capability and well achieving demographic in the east, with no positive or negative societal pressure on them, with a much more egalitarian professors/students ratio. Clearly there is something else besides capability and social pressure, and as others have pointed out, that is freedom of choice.

Power imbalances are a fact of life, where do you draw this arbitrary line of people being equal enough in power to interact certain ways? It's not obvious and seems nebulous to me. Furthermore, consider the possibility that many of these situations benefit and/or are consciously intended by both parties specifically because of the "power imbalance", like the parent poster described with undergrads trying to get in with higher level faculty, while the higher level faculty reciprocate for their own reasons.

The fundamental problem with this approach is the difficulty in quantifying many of these things. How do you objectively determine maturity, ability to react properly under various intense situation, intelligence, even certain physical elements are difficult to quantify. The arbitrary limits at certain ages are meant there to filter out the 90%+ that is known to fail these tests in general, at the detriment of the remaining percentage, knowing that the benefit of allowing the remaining percentage is insignificant compared to the risks and costs. On a case by case individual basis you can make moral arguments for sure, and the justice system and regular life tend to accept these up to a certain point. But some hard red line is required. As a final thought, why not let 12 years olds consent as well? In my view that is where the authors logic tends towards.

I see it differently, I am under the impression that when people say to live every moment as if it were your last they mean you should do whatever it is you are doing with focus and dedication, as if it is the last thing you will do, and judgement or the void awaits you afterwards. So although you are cooking a meal for future sustenance, you should have the mentality that even if you die before the meal can be eaten, it will be a damn good meal. Also to take risks in general.

I thank you for your reply and I would like to address your points.

As someone who is a first generation immigrant to the new world who went back to the old country I disagree with the idea that whites in the new world have specific regional/cultural European roots. They are far detached and most of the examples you mention are merely imitations or money grab celebrations. With genetic testing it is possible to locate where they originate from approximately, same with African originators, but I really don't see how this origin point means anything after hundreds of years across the Atlantic. A white American calling themselves 1/8 irish, 3/8 italian, and 4/8 french, is as ridiculous in my mind as an African American calling themselves 1/8 kenyan, 3/8 angolan, and 4/8 congolese. I agree with you that the African Americans are treated as lesser in the American society, but in many ways they have way more in common with the average white American then they do with the very diverse and foreign "black cultures". And likewise for the white Americans with the diverse and foreign "white cultures". My point is that if you believe in the existence of one, then the existence of the other comes as well, alternatively we could do away with the separation between black and white in America altogether and consider the people there to just be Americans, as people who left the old world for opportunity in the new world, which imo is where American society is trending towards overall (But will still take a long time and a lot of effort to achieve).

I don't understand this perspective. Aren't European Americans similarly stripped of there European heritage as time goes on in the new world? Thus the word white in america means "of european origin living in america" the same way black means "of african origin living in america". I think it is really schizophrenic to say that black culture exists but white culture does not seeing as both terms represent a new world phenomenon of classifying cultures and groups by where they originated.