These men we’re mostly quite educated and did took their role seriously. Term idiot comes from Greece and was originally used if a free man acted foolishly or was not interested of taking responsibility/part to the politics. Citizenship was a high status, and a birthright, so their role was aristocratic.
Still, almost half of the population were slaves, who of course did not have any voting power. Then women were of course not allowed to participate. Then there were non-atheinians residing in the city. So roughly 15-20% of the adult population could have voted. Oligarchy is defined as small group of people holding power, and that fits.
Well, that is the maddening thing about trans in the US. The percentage of the population that identifies is insanely small, like well under 1% And yes, I could have googled the guesstimated figure if I cared enough, but I can pretty confidently predict that out of some 350 million Americans (well, no one knows that true number anymore, especially with however many illegals have crept into the country like pests) they probably number in the 10’s of thousands. I wouldn’t imagine that there are even millions of trans Americans. Of course, the figure was even smaller several years ago, before instagram, tik tok, etc made transgenderism “a cool, fun thing” and scrambled kids, and some adults, into thinking that if they are unhappy in their current life situation, then perhaps you are living in the wrong sex/body.
And yes, I do view illegals like that as they come here claiming asylum from politics/violence/cartels etc. but they really come here for the free shit, and because whoever runs their home country has done a terrible job. While it’s easy to simply say “well, can you blame them for leaving a terrible economic/political/job/housing etc. situation & wanting a better life?”, that is still not a reason to knowingly break the law and illegally enter another country and pop out several kids to ensure you get govt. benefits. The fact that in the prior administration they were getting put up in luxury, taxpayer-funded hotels, given 3 meals a day, debit/cash cards, clothing, etc. didn’t help discourage them either. I interpret it as “ok, so you got dealt a bad hand in life, so you choose to illegally sneak into my country and then receive benefits that are bore out of my tax dollars, which are earned off of my hard work and TAKEN from me and spent on illegals?” Nope, that’s the part that really angers me, and apparently many millions of other Americans who recently voted Trump into office. These are also the same illegals who wave Mexican/Honduras/Guatemala/El Salvador flags, hang those flags on their rearview mirrors, etc. AND buy those cash cards and send money back to their home country.
All this stuff was a huge factor when I decided to delete my FB, Instagram, X and everything else I was in. One of the best decisions of my life. I can’t stand the low mentality some people have there.
Where I live the transgenderism is discussed sometimes, and we have similar political divisions with the subject than in US. But I know nordic school system and politics fairly well, and it’s not a big issue here. Which I’m really happy about. Adult people can do whatever with their lives, but these things blow way out of scale at times. Why should everybody be jabbing about things which affect 0,1-0,6% of the population (I Googled, hahah).
I forgot to mention, my wife is Finnish. She was not born there but here parents were. I like the culture and want to visit, we just have not done so yet. But now that I think on it, I might suggest to her we visit there next. I watched this show on TV the other night that showed how the Fins had transformed this cold war era underground compound into a place with restaurants, go karts, and all kinds of shops, games, swimming pool, etc. I thought it was fascinating and a very practical use of the now outdated space.
Yeah, I would say that from 60s to 80s Finland transformed from poor agricountry to a modern welfare state. There are definitely some problems, but generally this is pretty pleasant place to be or visit (if you can tolerate cold).
I’m so shitty in keeping things at subject. I’m constantly hijacking this thread with all kind of BS. Sorry for that. Hahah.
I’m not from UK thought, and I do worry about my country, but the freedom of speech is not my main consern currently.
Not sure about UKs legislature, but that does not pass as a hate speech.
“I hate Donald Trump and I will incite anybody who can to try to assasinate him and everybody supporting him” would be a hate speech most likely.
But I’ve been discussing about hate speech here for a while now, and I think it won’t go anywhere. I wish you guys good luck at the other side of the ocean.
At least in Finland this should be fine too, I’m pretty certain there would be zero problems in vast majority of European countries.
The most extreme case of a hate speech judgement was when a politician said that all muslims are pedophiles, and he got fined. And even that was widely criticised. Same individual has written that he has fantasies about shooting a certain homosexual to the head, no judgement about that.
That’s totally protected speech in the USA, as it should be.
Not a direct call to violence. It is theoretically possible for bold statements like that to be true, even if it infuriates some people. I’m not saying THAT EXACT statement is true, but you have to allow everyone to say what they actually believe.
What if all of the Mainers in Finland were actually organizing to foul your saunas with lobster husks, empty plastic nips of Dr. McGillicuties peppermint schnapps, and profane English graffiti?
It would be important to be able to single that group out.
Hitler thought this but he wasn’t that well versed on many things. Consider the Crusaders and the Knights Templar; they were not softies. You have Spaniards like El Cid and King Ferdinand (referred to as the Catholic). You had all of the empire building which brought with it conquest, slavery, genocide, oppression, etc. You had how the English viewed and treated the Irish. How Americans treated the Indians. You had the Napoleonic Wars. WW1 and WW2. I don’t think Christianity was this great pacifier or pussifier.
Nukes aside, a theoretical Russian invasion would probably go even worse than the Winter War did for them. Isn’t it still a bunch of undeveloped boreal forest along your eastern border?
If you look how Russia has fared against Ukrainians, I’m not too conserned. Even if we would not be part of NATO, we have much more functional (bigger, stronger and well equipped) army than Ukraine.
We also have a mandatory military service for men (and voluntary for women), so most Finns do know how to hold a weapon.
Also, like you said, the terrain in Eastern parts of Finland is not open fields like in Ukraine, but swampy forests.
Still, a war would be horrendous thing to happen. Luckily it’s not the most likely scenario currently. This is one reason many Finns would like to keep good relations towards US and NATO. It’s the best insurance against any aggressions from Russia.
Maine has a similar forest biome, and it is RUGGED terrain. We’ve got some not insignificant mountains to help shield us from the Quebecois menace. Our New Brunswick flank remains more vulnerable, but our population of well-armed alcoholics has kept the threat at bay since the year 1813.
From what you’re describing, Finland is doing alright for itself, and has been for quite a while, really.
Hitler and nazism were partly inspired by narrowly interpreting Niezsche’s “Übermensch who is free of weak Christian values”.
I do actually think that Christianity holds some soft and good values (concept of human values basically). Christianity (like all other ideologies/religions) is constantly misused from its original purposes.
So all the Crusades, wars, rapes and genocides made in the name of Christianity are true as well.
This is the incorrect approach. It isn’t how we as men define masculinity but how the feminists and the alphabet mafia define it. You just need to list all of the so called male attributes or behaviors, what they used to define as toxic (but not so much anymore as that would imply some masculine traits are not toxic and they want masculinity as a whole to be on the chopping block. Remember, they want masculinity to be seen as learned and not natural. So admitting there are masculine traits would be admitting that biology is real.)
Among the things they would list are competitiveness and valuing competition. Aggressiveness, not necessarily physical or violent but just how men approach goals and obstacles. Believing in meritocracy, which relates to competition. We want to know who the best is and competition (or comparison) is the way to do that. We would rather our kids do their best and lose than get rewarded for just showing up. There are other things as well but these are some examples. Not coincidently, when you start listing these masculine traits they find problematic, you’ll note that they are also on the list of how they define whiteness/western culture.
It used to be men were criticized for acting macho, OK fair enough, but now men are criticized for working too hard, being too ambitious and being too competent. In short, the things that the feminists and others define as masculine are the things that make men perform better than women. It also be noted that these things are considered for the top of the socioeconomic ladder. Meaning, women are not interested in competing with men when it comes to being lumberjacks or working on oil rigs. It’s in the boardroom or in government jobs. It’s in jobs where they can get away with not doing what the men are doing and still rise to the top positions. For example, we probably all saw the firefighting lesbians in charge of the LA fire department. Does anyone believe that they ever ran into a burning building and carried someone out? You have female police chiefs. How many of them were on SWAT or kicked down doors? Whenever a female cop has gotten into a physical battle with a suspect, it’s because something went wrong. It’s the men who typically will go hands on.
Anyway, to insure these masculine traits are not learned, you don’t foster or nurture them when they manifest. Don’t let kids compete, at anything. Don’t measure them against one another. Everyone gets their own A and has their individual standard. Don’t set standards too high so the gifted don’t learn to push themselves as giving 50% will be good enough for them to reach the standard. This also eliminates risk, in this case risk of falling short or failing. You can’t get rid of the concept of winning without getting rid of the concept of losing. You get rid of the ability to overcome adversity or worse, the willingness to even try. Ask a mountain climber why he wants to climb a mountain and he’ll answer, because it’s there. What else do you do? Put boys on drugs to “calm them down.” It used to be we called boys with a lot of energy, hyper. Now they have a mental illness. You destroy the nuclear family. Boys don’t have a man in the house setting the example. Showing them how to control, direct and use their masculine traits in a way that won’t land them in prison.
