What I mean is, do you essentially picture your vision of an ideal society, and then work backwards and ask what rules or principles would be necessary to make that the outcome? Or do you imagine your ideas of right and wrong, the role of government, the role of social norms, etc first, and then 'press play' on them in a sense, and see what society comes out and just accept the result as the byproduct of those principles?

Are right and wrong, the role of the State, the role of cultures, the responsibilities of the individual, and so on ideas you can imagine in their ideal form in abstract, independent from any specific implementation, or are they tools one uses to get the outcome they want, and if they do not achieve that outcome, you change or modify the tools so that you do get the outcome you want?

The movie itself taken as a whole is actually a good movie. Very good even.

The issue is the feminism and female empowerment. Jessie takes charge in everything and Buzz is made out to be a submissive bitch. They even do a role reversal where aside from the marriage proposal (which I find great because men proposing to women is not how it ought to be. And the fact they leave this as the only male role the male does should be all anyone needs to know about proposals. Proposing is feminine. Women should be asking the man for marriage not the other way around. Getting on a knee for a woman? LMFAO), Buzz took on all the traditionally female roles in the build-up to the marriage and in the wedding.

The White girl made friends with the black girl, ofc. All the White boys/girls were "not good friends" (until the very end, so I'll give it that).

The real issue was that the female lead, Jessie, was in charge at all times and all the guys were always just following her lead in everything. She was always in control and always the dominant one with the men meek and submissive. Woody is depicted as a balding old guy with a big gut yet Jessie, who isn't any older, is depicted as youthful and strong.

This kind of messaging fucks kids up and simp parents have no clue what it's doing to their kids.

Across the nation massive YIMBY laws are being passed to mass produce cheap “homes” 12 to an acre while not addressing any of the causes of the housing shortage. For some reason, despite all logic and reason YIMBYs seem to be incapable of the reality that we need growth in small towns to balance growth over massive city hubs, that building new cities would reduce strain while also allowing INNOVATION that constantly replacing in old cities is vastly expensive (think placing central air in every building in Europe).

Instead YIMBYs love the Austin “model”. Here’s what Austin did, they flooded the market with sardine box apartments, half of Austin’s apartments are now single bedrooms or studios and the average size of ALL apartments are 830 sq feet. The average price per Sq Ft of homes in Austin is ~$320, ~$228 is the national average. However rental prices are down (if you ignore price per square foot)!

Any sane person could tell that overall price dropping while price per square feet increasing is massively bad, if eggs became 75% of their price tomorrow people would be happy, until they realized cartons now hold 8 eggs. YIMBYs however think that instead of using the millions of dying small towns for new cities and planned growth we should do the worst possible thing and cram more people into smaller homes that cost more.

Hey all, i just went down a little 🧃 rabbit hole and wanted to share it with you guys.

So recently, an "activist" hedgefund called Oasis Management tried to do a hostile takeover of Kadokawa Corp, which is the parent company of From Software, makers of, most recently, Elden Ring. Apparently they said Kadokawas CEO left money on the table by having Bamco publish Elden Ring instead of doing it themselves. Fortunately, the companys (mostly Japanese, I assume) board backed the CEO and told Oasis to fuck off. You can read the story here.

This reeked of kikery, so I decided to do a little digging. According to wikipedia, Oasis Management "is a hedge fund management firm headquartered in Hong Kong... It is an activist investor, that has pushed for significant change at companies. In recent times, it has been focusing on Japanese firms." This is where I found out that this same hedge fund sent a letter to then Nintendo president Iwata saying what I wrote in the title, among other things. Read that article here.

Who could be running such a scumbag company you ask? A fella by the name of Seth Fischer who, wouldnt you know it, served in the Israeli Defense Force. Every. Single. Time.

I'm a strong proponent of 1936, especially if you have the power of foreknowledge:

too young to really remember the dustbowl

childhood in segregated schools

too young to fight in WW2 (obviously)

too young to fight in Korea

can enjoy a full 18+ year long career in any pro sport you want, if that's what you like, with much less "competition"

can go into TV or film when it's a much freer industry and you can make whatever you want

can get into gaming super early on, be an arcade or pinball pioneer or get hands-on with the earlier console gens and innovate where the giants failed

can get any other job you might want, first try, and you don't even need to apply yourself, plus you get some great pay

teenager in the 1950s

23/24 at the start of the 1960s

too old to fight in Vietnam

can go to basically any gig of any well-loved act up to 1990 and see them in their early prime

food cheap for most of your life, and good in ways that don't exist anymore (such as tallow-cooked fries)

cars cheap for most of your life, and you can drive some of today's most desirable classics for pennies on the dollar when they're brand new

can fly on concorde for most of your life

regular flights are still 100x better than they are today

minimal if any faggotry

72 years old by the time the economy crashes in 2008, so almost certainly retired before it can do any damage to your savings