>> (especially women)

>It's always about that isn't it?

>How pathetic is it to still model your whole life after women while pretending to be an isle of self-reliance? Men really are lost.

If I were to hazard a guess: he said it in the passing. You read into it a little too much.

Frankly, a large portion of these replies feel like some pretty clear cut projection. It’s impressive.

Yes, it's projection for sure. A large number of men appear to need validation from women. Pathetic. I guess from an evolutionary perspective it had to that way. Men who didn't need that validation worked themselves out of the gene pool.

It depends on the degree.

Completely ignoring what everyone thinks and doing your own thing is a good way to get in a very dangerous situation from a basic-life-needs perspective. And with women being a bit over half the population, saying ‘fuck it’ to what half the population wants, especially if you’re picking fights with them, is quite dangerous - even if they are not 100%.

But you know who can handle dangerous, and doesn’t need validation from the population (in that form) to get what they want and have their needs met?

The actual king.

It’s a high risk, high reward (potentially) strategy. Better be good (and actually strong) if you want to not need to be liked.

What I think we’ve been seeing play out is entire generations of men who learned that the best strategy was to be liked by women so the women would do all the work to support them. Which seems to have worked quite well for many of them for awhile.

But now people are burning out, and the ‘easy wins’ from the prior approach (or just lifestyle creep/inflation!) is causing more real and visible difficulty - and the situation is indeed getting more difficult. We even have clear predators showing up and operating in the open, with no one stopping them.

There needs to be more than just vibes and following the rules for things to work out now, and a different approach is needed.

We’ll see what ends up shaking out, eh?

One thing is clear though - if society won’t accept someone stepping up and punching someone in the face or worse (even if it is to protect them), you’ll eventually end up with a bunch of predators who will do whatever they want without fear taking advantage of society.

>Every regulation loving person who is exposed to a tiny fragment of how actually terrible most regulatory frameworks are immediately have this thought.

The problem is that such people often have no (original) thoughts. As the old saying going about bring the horse to the water etc.

>They aren't created for the power trip of government officials.

They weren't created for that reason, but it end up being used precisely for that.

That is the conundrum we all face - how much power do we give the gvt.

0

Old trick. The last I checked about 10+ countries have done it.

This infact is the original concept of the penny.

> Of course, there was also central guidance and, well, everyone just followed it. It's called "having a society".

Nice concept.

>Eng is no more intelligent or ethics driven.

As a general rule Eng/technical field have to be more transparent, because of the inherent nature of the field. It's another question if they are 'ethical', but I'd say on an average more transparent=more ethical. Exceptions will exist of course.

Thanks. That indeed is a more nuanced take on things. For many 'middle' class people the quality of life has actually worsened during the past 2 to3 decades in most 'developed' nations.

>Our bodies evolved to eat a diverse omnivorous diet and complex carbs

Evolved to eats omnivorous diets yes no doubts, but to thrive on omnivorous diets, perhaps no. Most people I know thrive on meats and do worse otherwise.