And?
And that means that Finns are markedly different from Russians in multiple aspects. Ukrainians, on the other hand, aren't.
Unlike the Ukrainians, unfortunately (for this point of view, that is) the Finns aren't Slavs, aren't Orthodox Christians and have their own peculiar language.
Perhaps for one segment of men, true crime is simply too real, too close to their own lives of organized crime or petty violence, to be an enjoyable escape.
I'm pretty sure only a small fraction of true crime fandom is focused on organized crime. In fact, it's the one category of true crime that can probably count on more male than female interest, due to the recurring themes of honor, revenge, masculinity, the handing down of power from father to son etc.
With respect to petty violence, it's probably true that it isn't too close to the lives of many women, not even those in the underclass. Petty crime in general, on the other hand, surely is.
From a white ethnonationalist perspective, any European expression of ethnonationalist sentiment is immediately suspect if the Washingtonian globohomo empire / GAE not only permits it to exist but actively encourages and bankrolls it as a local enforcer of its overseas aspirations. It's doubly suspect if it's justified by claims of ethnogenesis that have no basis in reality, unlike those of Polish, Baltic and Finnish nationalists, to be fair to them.
Despite the similarity to examples of Western race-themed cuckiness, the line about 'no such thing as an ethnic Russian' is at least aligned with the reality of the traditions of the Russian state, so I can't fault them for that. While the Putinist system obviously comes across as lame-ass from the perspective of a blood & soil nationalist, that doesn't disprove my original point.
Because Russian society does not normalize ethnomasochism.
Necessary but not sufficient. Multiple other social and cultural conditions are necessary as well. Also, my impression is that such leftist attempts at suppression stem from their enemies' observed ability to rally large masses of average people on their side. It's not generally something they're capable of themselves, so attempting to constrain them when the shoe is on the other foot seems unnecessary.
So you think the reason that happened was due to freedom of speech in itself? I find that a rather simplistic view.
Are you referring to the October Revolution?
But is is the sort of weather that is conducive to being a developed country? Meaning a weather not characterized by extremes?
Isn't a significant part of the country a) practically impassable rainforest unfit for agricultural use b) similarly impassable arid grassland and scrub, which is also of little use?
it would likely be necessary to suppress leftist speech to avoid returning to the same desperate original predicament
Why? What threat would they conceivably pose?
blessed with good weather, natural resources
That's a bit of a stretch.
Palin v. The New York Times
Is this basically all that bullshit about the crosshairs map? That's all I can recall.
I noticed that the current top post on the SSC subreddit examines differing cultural attitudes towards male and female life expectancy. One commenter noted the following:
In Germany, until a few years ago, women could retire with full payment 5 years!!! earlier then men, despite their already longer live expectancy. But at least they equalized that. But actually arguments could be made, that the fairest would be to allow earlier retirement for men, so they can enjoy a similar payout ratio as women do.
To which another responded:
We had a similar, now disfunct system. An aspect of the earlier female retirement was that the women got granny-tracked - they would be available earlier to provide child care for their grandchildren/nephews and the state would basically pay for that. So that would be one aspect to consider - the state is not paying anything out of fairness, only of utility.
"Granny-tracking" is an English expression I never heard before, but it did ring a bell. I can't tell what current German legislation is on his matter, but I know for sure that Hungarian law is similar to what the German was(?) - women have the option to retire earlier though their life expectancy is higher on average. As far as I know, this is normal in most countries. And yes, the most likely explanation I can come up with is indeed that society operates under the tacit assumption that old women can be generally expected to fulfill the socially desirable role of unpaid babysitters, basically, whereas old men cannot, for various reasons. And this role is more important than whatever jobs they would be doing - it's really that simple, isn't it?
Let's also consider that demographic implosion and social atomization probably has little effect on this. A child needs care and supervision even if it's an only child, and even moreso if it's being raised by a single mother.
Another aspect is that society doesn't treat male and female careers the same way. The notion that men can basically be forced to keep working until they drop dead is something that society can tacitly accept more or less, but not in the case of women. In fact, it's generally acceptable for women to basically drop out of the rat race after finding a husband, then preferably having two children in succession, thus leaving the job market for 6-7 years, returning to it afterwards only to the extent that family expenses absolutely demand it.
Does anyone have a different perspective?
That's my view as well.
Thanks. I checked the graphs. Am I supposed to see a big difference between the TFRs of SK and Singapore? Because I don't.
It does, however, characterize 'rural poor people indulging in thoughtless behavior' as essentially conservative behavior, without sneer, as early as 1941.
the lifestyle of most 'conservatives' in America is nothing but rural poor people indulging in thoughtless moment to moment hedonism
In whatever shape England emerges from the war it will be deeply tinged with the characteristics that I have spoken of earlier. The intellectuals who hope to see it Russianized or Germanized will be disappointed. The gentleness, the hypocrisy, the thoughtlessness, the reverence for law and the hatred of uniforms will remain, along with the suet puddings and the misty skies. It needs some very great disaster, such as prolonged subjugation by a foreign enemy, to destroy a national culture. The Stock Exchange will be pulled down, the horse plough will give way to the tractor, the country houses will be turned into children's holiday camps, the Eton and Harrow match will be forgotten, but England will still be England, an everlasting animal stretching into the future and the past, and, like all living things, having the power to change out of recognition and yet remain the same. (George Orwell, 1941)
I can forgive boomer Westerners believing this sort of stuff, but if Russians buy it then we truly are lost.
I guess what he means is that "it never occurred to us that it can happen to us in the West"
I'm not completely sure what you mean.
I meant that it doesn't fall into the category of overall life experiences and phase that average people normally associate with the word.
Here's how I see it: if you're a college-educated Korean man with a girlfriend/wife, who presumably is also college-educated and middle-class like you, your social circle will put enormous pressure on you to have exactly one child, preferably a boy, and make every conceivable sacrifice to try getting him into one of the top 5 or so universities because there's like a 5% chance that he'll succeed and that's more than zero. Of course, this all seems rather daunting to the average man in such a situation, and even more so to the woman, so they reject this idea in many cases. After all, there's a reason why the South Korean TFR is not even 1 but 0.8 or so.
However, if "you sweep floors or fold boxes at the Gwangyang Steel Works until you die", no such pressure exists. Even if we don't categorize it strictly as underclass, it's still rather close. It certainly counts as the precariat, and when you belong to that social class as a woman, everyone in your environment implicitly understands that having children is the single most important thing you'll ever do in your life, and the only thing you'll ever be respected for, if that.
I've seen worldwide data online 5-10 years ago. Singapore was shown with the lowest TFR in the entire world while S Korea was the 3rd lowest or so, tied with Hongkong and Taiwan, roughly.
they were a "tiger" because they grew so quickly
Yes, that's what I meant. (Supposedly the tiger metaphor originates from tigers being able to jump really far.) I'd assume that a growing economy a) creates a large number of jobs in manufacturing and industry that are available to people without college degrees b) gives average people a sense of optimism, because one can believe that prosperity has increased, and will continue to increase.
Correct. Galicia is certainly distinctive. Preserving Galician identity makes complete sense there. But the Crimea, the Donbass, Novorossiya are not Galicia.
More options
Context Copy link