Religion can certainly be problematic but I think its worth bringing up how monotheism specifically acts as a mind virus at its worst. It’s inherently exclusivist and closed minded, priming people to see those that don’t believe in their god as not human and can even act as justification to bring pain, suffering and death upon nonbelievers. It’s also inherently centralized and authoritarian which is why it to works synergistically with oppressive forms of governence.

Polytheism is riddled with mystical thinking but, generally, beleiving in more than one god makes it more difficult to use it as a justification to hurt people that don’t believe in your god. By having a wide variety of divinities it is naturally decentralized.

Christianity wiped out Roman polytheism with relative ease and ushered in a millenia long dark age. Politicians/Rulers of long past and even today recognize the coercive and unifying power of monotheism and are often keen to wield it to stamp out dissent and concentrate power.

Monotheism is also effective at priming people to accept autocracy. If you believe in one supreme all knowing deterministic god then it’s not that hard to believe in a human ruler wield absolute power as god’s chosen one.

Democracy and monotheism in many way incompatible phiosophies. It’s why the Greeks, South Asian and indigineous confederacies were able to arrive at democractic systems at various periods in history (they were not monotheist) and also why the West had to institute seperation of church and state to become democratic.

I say this not to disparage spirituality as a whole. I personally have been made better by it and believe that it’s core to the human experience but acknowledge that some do not feel a need for it. What we need to be wary of is monotheism. It has brought great civilizations to ruin and promotes conformity of thought which stifles human ingenuity.

The answer to your question is a resounding no but you both need to be on the same page. Is there any real risk of you developing deeper feelings that will hurt you in the future if/when you’re cast aside? Are you ready to be cast aside on terms that are not your own if his parents decided it’s time for him to get serious? Would you be comfortable with going from his priority to a distraction in one fell swoop when things get real? Would you simply end the relationship at that point?

If you feel respected by him and his family and you’re cool with it not going any further / potentially ending abruptly then sounds like you’re okay with the circumstances.

You’re in a relationship with a guaranteed expiry date. Traditionally relationships were a means to an end (marriage), now they can be much more sophisticated. Are you truly satisfied with terms of your relationship and most likely outcomes?

If there were a person who treats you great, fucks you good and gets you but also could be a long term partner, would you rather be in that situation? Do you think you’re wasting time by not looking for that person? Is not the oppurtunity cost of this relationship too high if that’s the case? Is there a part of you that feels your investment in this relationship is a sunk cost that makes it difficult to look for alternatives?

It really comes down to whether you want a long term relationship or not. If that’s not a priority to you then you’re fine. If it is, then you may be passing on something even better and you need to decide if it’s time to go look for that.

There is a South Indian film that takes on this idea.

Two nearly century year grandparents have fallen into a routine of elderly living, taking care of each other with some help from the kids.

One day the grandfather finds a love letter from another man addressed to his wife from over 50 years ago. He is livid and wants a divorce despite their near 75 year relationship.

The family largely tries to dissuade him but he is determined to pursue divorce. His wife largely remains silent throughout all of this.

Ultimately a daughter who the grandfather has estranged for going on her own path returns and the context of the grandmother’s affair is revealed.

The grandfather was a flawed character with an inflexible patriarchal view on family dynamics (a fairly global norm in the 1950s and 60s). He has shown growth into a more egalitarian mindset since then.

However, when they prematurely lose their eldest son to a drowning accident, he struggles to cope. He turns to alcohol and while being lost in the bottle his wife (the grandmother, who is also mourning) has to find a way to keep the family together, raise the kids, manage the household entirely on her own.

It was during this period that the affair occurs. A man in the community offers the grandma emotional support while the grandfather is trying to drink his grief away, detached entirely from his family in any meaningful way.

When the grandfather comes to know that it occurred during a period of life that he has come to regret, he forgives her, as she forgives him for his detachment while grieving the loss of their son. Having reconciled they die peacefully together in their sleep.

I completely agree with you that obsessive monogamy is toxic. I think if someone is cheating “casually” in a mutually agreed upon monogamous relationship then that is a red line and disrespectful. However, real life can get pretty complicated and no one should be entering a relationship expecting to exert absolute control over their partners body / intimacy. That is incredibly toxic

This entire thread just makes me mourn the quality of history education in this part of the world.

Which nation, through a proxy war with the USSR, armed and empowered the progenitor of the Taliban?

Nearly everyone here desperately needs a crash course in how this part of the world creates circumstances for conflict and instability elsewhere. If you look closely enough you’ll see, from the colonial era to now, it was done with (often times malicious) intention.

The amazing thing about American foreign policy is that it thinks it can fix the problems it creates and it essentially never can.

people consider it bad because they fear it will be forced upon them by racist/ableist powers

Yes, because this was normal thinking 150 years ago when eugenics was gaining prominence:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.

Charles Darwin The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex

Every state application of eugenics since then has been applied to achieve some form of demographic reconstitution.

Nazism took the Western obsession with eugenics to its lowest point.

So yes, all eugenics is bad. Your example of the mother and father does not amount to eugenics as their motivation is not to “improve the human gene pool” and is instead much more personal.

If you’re moving for economic reasons, because you’re country was decimated by colonialism / neocolonialism, and the country you’re moving to prides itself on individual liberty then you have no obligation to completely abandon your native culture.

Even today ‘expats’ rarely integrate into the local culture. Don’t give up a part of your identity just because you want to fit in.

By all means, when in Rome do as the Romans do. But that doesn’t have to mean losing yourself in the process

The challenge is that historically in America discrimination was applied in a race based fashion and this is not fully captured by socioeconomic status. So the rectifier has to at least in some way acknowledge race. That being said, it doesn’t have to be in perpetuity.

I hear where you’re coming from as an Indian American myself. It can feel weird that some minority groups are disadvanraged / have a handicap applied relative to the majority demographic but I will say yours and our demographic tend to do pretty well despite that.

Until we live in a world where a resume with the name Tyrone or Mercedes isn’t more likely to be discarded without review, looking at socioeconomic status alone won’t make sense. We have evidence now that the AI hiring tools used by major corporations are just as biased, if not more so, than humans so this a problem that still needs solving.

The core issue is population distribution. Most governments are designed to run with a certain proportion of people in each age bracket. Japan and much of Europe is headed towards being essentially old age communities. Governments are not effective at saving money to provide for the needs of a majority elderly population elderly. They typically make use of resources coming from the productively employed segments of society. With an elderly skewed population, there would need to be major institutional overhauls to meet the needs of people.

It gets engagement from all sides. Advertisers dream come true.

By respecting their agency.

There’s truth to what you’re saying but it also doesn’t matter. If it were instead designated as “North Atlantic” or with any arbitrary label, you would still have a subgroup of those people thinking their superior and giving us phrenology, eugenics, Nazism etc and believing in _______ supremacy. The underlying problem doesn’t go away.

In UN proceedings the Middle East is referred to as West Asia.

Middle East is very much a colloquial anglo/euro-centric term. We’ll see if it’ll stick around outside of the West, where 80% of humanity resides.

deleted by creator

France has no US military bases on its soil and has refused to be entirely vassalized by the US unlike much of the rest of Europe. It’s one of few Western countries that has managed to maintain strategic autonomy in the face of US hegemony. Refusal to participate in the Iraq war is an example of this, as other Western countries like the UK followed the Americans in blindly like a dependent vassal would.

Durable societies are unfortunately bound to have such inconveniences for some in exchange for the betterment of many.

Tech companies have released the equivalent of digital opium so they and the government are accountable.

When we look back at the opioid epidemic of the 90s we don’t blame the addicts or their families (well I suppose we did at one point, without the benefit of hindsight or a bigger picture view), we blame the Sacklers, pharmaceutical companies, doctors that took kickbacks etc.

I’d hate for us to make the same mistake just because the drug is delivered in a way we don’t completely understand yet.

It’s also not as simple as asking parents to simply be better at parenting, whatever that may mean. The drug is already out on the street, widely available, and ridiculously addictive. Keeping your child from it is not only depriving them of a dopamine hit that their brains are not developed enough to simply ignore (even most adults are addicted) and it is in many cases relegating them to social ostracization.

This is far beyond what one parent or group of parents can fix. It requires a societal level change which generally needs to come from the government, whether we like it or not.

I’d be happy to hear out possible solutions and, as a parent, share what is viable and what isn’t. It would be nice to hear from other parents also.

The article makes the claim that homes have been broken into.

Great insight.

Being accustomed to bad infrastructure means they instinctually wouldn’t use good infrastructure if it’s right in front of them? That’s an interesting assumption to make of people who come from lesser means.

Yes, I can see that being a problem. But it comes back to Japanese infrastructure not having adequate capacity so I’m glad they’re doing the responsible thing by shutting it down. Hopefully they can come up with a solution so that Japanese businesses that rely on a spike in volume during this festival don’t get hit too hard.

Lots of narrative building going on in this thread. I’m in another comment chain where the case is being made that Japan has the best maintained and widely available toilets in the world and yet people are still choosing to break into homes to use the bathroom and defecate in the open despite this. Hard to believe anyone can genuinely buy this so one can only assume that the underlying intention is, rather than having a discussion in good faith, to pit this on one group of people while absolving the organizers of any accountability.

Which is their prerogative but it’s important that they acknowledge their bias. Japan is headed towards an alarming demographic collapse with 40% of its population being pensioners by 2046. Tourism is one of the few industries that will keep their economy and social services afloat, so I do genuinely hope they figure this out, for their sake.