The problems facing the two sexes are different and the expectations of them are different, at least in many societies. The expectations of a young man have been around self-sacrifice, self-control, and self-reliance, and looking towards female role models for cues on that would lose a lot of nuance particular to the male condition.
Women do not have the same physical capabilities of men in either size or strength, and so you're not gonna see the same modeling of restraint. Women have, by and large, a different way of processing emotions than men, and and so you're not gonna see the same modeling of how to handle things like intense anger. Women are rewarded for consensus and co-support in a way that men are not, so you're not gonna see the same modeling of how and when to step out of line and take your licks. Women do not have the same utility in things like warfare or manual labor, and so you're not gonna see the same modeling of patriotic duty or chivalry.
It's fine and well to have role models for other purposes, mind you--plenty of great examples of other qualities--but you can't look towards women for how to be a good man with the same efficacy you can look at men. The opposite argument is of course laughed at out of hand: nobody would seriously suggest that a young woman look towards men to learn how to be a proper woman.
In a normal timeline, the way this was going to get hammered out was behind closed doors where very serious people from the State Department presented a spreadsheet of options for Ukraine's renewal of the Democracy Plus DLC and the ukies, through gritted teeth, chose a mortgage they could live with. This should not be a surprise.
(Absent, say, Europe committing more men or material.)
The US, absent anything else, needs to choose between direct military intervention, continuing sending over material (which is unpalatable long term), or cutting Ukraine loose. Again, none of that should be a surprise--if it _is_, you should get your head examined.
The problem today is that these conversations were had out in public, and in so doing we got to see the top two rungs of the US executive branch act excessively cruel on the one hand and like somebody completely ignorant of the stakes on the other--the "it'll make great TV" being perhaps the icing on the cake. Even worse, it'll probably work, because Zelensky seems to care more about his country than his ego.
Even to the extent that I agree with some of the realpolitick, I cannot abide by the odious behavior adjacent it. Kissinger was evil, but not impishly cruel.
(I also would caution people not to buy into the "Russia owns Trump" narrative when the more depressing--but probably accurate--explanation is simply that he wants the "Look at me, I ended a war I didn't even fight in!" merit badge.)
I watched people scam VCs with drone tech, and Theranos, and other things.
Can people please do any amount of critical thinking around this sort of stuff? It steals funding from serious efforts and pollutes the pool.
What is special in this approach compared to literal decades in the field?
What is special about these young dudes compared to better-funded ventures that haven't pulled it off yet and who have been working on it longer?
What is the difference between "yeah we can do design work look at all this stuff (that's the easy 60-80% of the problem space)" versus "we can actually solve the remaining work that's got everybody so screwed up"?
I highly doubt that the poster did anything other than try and conduct business with the tribe.
Thievery is thievery--if it's okay on a small scale now, it must've been fine on a large scale then. At which point, we're just scoring who was more effective at it. Sucks to suck.
Well, we either have a despot or mob rule--hard to have both.
Congress has abdicated its role, and the rot is now so plain that even a 78 year old can get the idiot masses to vote him in to do something.
The thing about power...it only stays with the people who have the balls to wield it. Congress needs to find their balls or we'll just be back here in another four years.
If you can't see how the implementation of a Holocaust in the US might be impacted by the distribution and population density of Latinos I can't help you.
Some of the estimates I've seen for 1930s Germany were that Jews were less than 1% of the population; by contrast, Latinos are far beyond that--something like 40% in Texas and California.
A big part of the Holocaust was the targeted persecution and removal and ultimate execution of Jews, right? This was greatly aided by the fact that there were so few of them, and the Nazis were able to pin a bunch of ills of the time upon them. It's a lot easier to other a group when there are only a few representatives around.
My assertion--if you agree with the numbers earlier, which to me seem to be about the right near order of magnitude--is that we're not going to see that here in the US with Latinos (or Blacks, or most other groups) in the same way, and so fears of a Holocaust against those groups are likely unfounded.
Now, this isn't to say that there aren't a dozen other problems that could pop up, or that perhaps it might take a form wholly different than history--but the assertion was "we have lots of parallels to the Holocaust's preconditions" and I think that is (mercifully) one of the few things we don't have to worry about.
I don't think you're reading me in the way that I intended, and I think you're being very uncharitable.
I did not claim that their concerns about replacement were well-founded, merely that they were understandable. Again, go back and read what I actually wrote: we cannot both acknowledge that there is a decline in the proportion of whites in America, that there are policies being pursued that help with this (again, no moral judgement, simply a statement of fact), and also that the people who are scared about losing majority status are completely without basis in their concerns.
If you cannot understand the tiny pier of truth that these people use as a foundation for the massive pile of other nonsense they've stacked (or had stacked) upon it, you will never be able to get them to change.
I'm not asking you to agree with them. I'm not asking you to say that the whole of their beliefs makes any sense at all.
I'm asking you to understand that they aren't pulling this completely out of thin air, and that if you want to have more success than you've had it may be worth it to acknowledge their concerns and try to show how your preferred policies would serve them better and how their current preferred bozos are manipulating them.
You and people like you might assert that they're idiots, misinformed, evil, or whatever else--but their vote counts as much as yours, sometimes moreso, and so you ignore or misunderstand them at your peril.
But, I would ask...was the excommunication of Eich worth it, all things considered? Have we learned anything?