@Botond173's banner p

Botond173


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

				

User ID: 473

Botond173


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 473

I'm not sure I understand if HBD has some unified perspective on this. While I see darker hispanics, most hispanics I see are majority European.

It's because Hispanic is a linguistic category, not a racial one.

"never ask a Latin American father about his teenage/young adult daughter's 'social' life"

Never ask a Latin American father about his teenage/young adult daughter's 'social' life.

There’s a Trump personality cult with very little genuine infrastructure behind it, sitting on top of the carcass of the post-Tea Party GOP, which itself is a hollowed-out shell of what it once was even ten years ago.

The timeline is a bit of a mess here. 10 years ago it was 2014. The Tea Party protests were in 2010 and, as far as I know, were quickly co-opted by the mainstream GOP after contributing to its success in the midterms. It was a flash in the pan, basically. 10 years, ago, the GOP was already a post-Tea Party GOP. Also, weren't there periods/terms between 2010-18 when it had a majority in the Senate and the House? There was ample opportunity to do immigration reform.

"not even with zero effort or consequences would she get any"

We can rephrase this in this context simply as "unable to induce an erection".

There was also a similar though more serious scandal in California back in 1993 around the so-called Spur Posse.

That's good to hear.

When I think of wokeness, I think of the great cultural turn around 2010 - 2015... Hanania has no explanation for this.

Liberal disappointment in Obama seems to explain most if it, I think. OWS and the Tea Party can be interpreted as repercussions from this.

My point is this: isn't hiking normally considered as a social/bonding activity by its enthusiasts, or at least the majority of them? I'm looking at this in the context of social conventions, not legality. The issue isn't how hiking is to be regulated. I know a bunch of people who have hiking as their hobby, and almost everytime they go in groups. When I first heard about this whole social media brouhaha, this was my first thought: why is a - presumably young and single - woman going hiking alone in the first place? Especially in a forest inhabited by wild bears? Isn't it women who do not like solo activities as much as men?

So after reading of this online trend I decided to look up information on bear attacks in Russia, as I remembered reading that those often become a serious issue on a local level.

There's an interesting tidbit I've found: "Kamchatka brown bears are generally not dangerous to humans, and only 1% of encounters result in attack." (The cited source is a Kamchatka Ecology and Environmental Institute study.)

To be sure, brown bears are no joke, and the Kamchatkan subspecies is even less of a joke: "The Kamchatka brown bear is the biggest brown bear in Eurasia, with a body length of 2.4 m (7.9 ft) to 3 m (9.8 ft) tall on hind legs, and a weight up to at least 650 kg (1,430 lb). It is about the size of the Kodiak bear..."

Anyway, the 1% figure is somewhat surprising and seems to underpin the feminist argument at first sight. However, I'd be very surprised if solitary female-on-male encounters in the woods were statistically as dangerous anywhere in the world.

Isn't hiking/trekking supposed to be a communal/social activity?

I'm sure that's what she tried doing before Mother Nature snuffed her out.

Fair enough. When I first read it, I didn't notice that the story also entails boning.

That's the point. Fried ice does not and can not exist. It's an old Arab proverb, supposedly.

It's worth pointing out though that I can imagine many mainstream Republicans (not those heavily involved in the Christian Right) would also be more or less sympathetic to Sanger's ideas if they actually checked out what those were.

That's not the point. It's a matter of not being careless.

  • -11

It's still not advisable though. Getting lost or suffering an injury can have grave consequences in such a situation, especially if there's no cell phone signal.

The simple truth is that nobody, either man or woman, should ever go hiking in the woods alone, with or without bears inhabiting those woods, period.

It's also true that no bear will ever falsely accuse you of rape or domestic violence, will never scam you online, will never drag you to divorce court etc.

Yes.

Early 20s reader of The Ethical Slut finally finds the rich foreign gentleman she's been trying to snag. Comes back raving about how the first date was amazing, he must have spent $500 between dinner and the hotel, she's finally found the man of her dreams. A week later he has to go on an international business trip, and stops answering his phone. Oddly, his phone is ringing like it's still in Korea ...

To be fair, this behavior is genuinely puzzling.

I don't know. But that's what I consider plausible by looking at the one relevant historical parallel, Vietnam.

Yes, it doesn't add up, although the general narrative of the comment is fairly convincing. Simple anthropology tells us that roughly an equal number of boys and girls are born into upper middle class South Korean families. They have the same advantages in life. For every single woman with high expectations, there's a well-paid single man of similar social status.

Apparently Korean women assume that they are feminist allies, and aren't icky betas, I suppose.

I can also imagine they genuinely believed they finally found a message that resonates with black churchgoers.