It’s pretty easy.

1. The claim made is that the reason we can’t dye our hair and have silly buildings is because of capitalism.
2. We can observe that in capitalist countries there are silly buildings - eg, the Sydney Oprah House; and you actually can dye your hair - eg, half of my friends.
3. If we look at non-capitalist countries like North Korea or Cuba, we notice, at best, an equivalent amount of silly buildings and hair dying.
4. It may be stated that non-capitalist countries like North Korea or Cuba are not capitalist but are not the correct sort of non-capitalist countries to maximize silly buildings and dyed hair. The next obvious question is - if these are not the correct countries to look at, which are?
   4.1) Sometimes anarchist collectives are pointed to. The most notable among these in the modern world with significant scale is the Zapatista territory in Mexico. I have not personally been to the Zapatista territories, but based on some googling, I cannot find any particular evidence of more or less silly buildings or dyed hair in this region.
   4.2) Sometimes it is claimed that all the governments which would have maximized silly buildings and dyed hair were overthrown by the globalist/capitalist conspiracy (or whatever). But then we must ask why this same conspiracy failed to overthrow Cuba or North Korea. Or else why it has not overthrown the Northern European governments which have some non-capitalist features.

Based on all this, I think there is a reasonable claim to be made that capitalism is not strongly corrolated with dyed hair and silly buildings. And with no strong corrolations, saying that a lack of dyed hair and silly buildings is capitalism’s fault cannot be claimed in good faith.

I currently am living out my days on a bare minimum of passive income. Everyone I talk to about it seems to think it is super cool.

But think of the silly buildings!!!

Def overeater. God I wish I starved myself instead. Then at least I’d be depressed and hot.

Yeah, like that.

My point being, what we end up saying is that two people could do exactly the same thing, but it is only acceptable if there is no premeditation and everything is completely emotional.

Sure, your numbers are probably correct. But also I was thinking of, like, someone who makes 45k dating someone who makes 150k - eg, a teacher dating a doctor or something. I, personally, can’t imagine dating someone who makes, say, a 100 million dollar salary.

No… the way that I worked harder to get my last pay raise. By identifying the intersection of my interests and market needs in my workplace, doing a mix of theoretical study and practice in my free time, and applying for other jobs so I would have leverage to negotiate.

Seriously, some of yall are such doomers. Yes it is possible to get paid more. No, you won’t become, like, a billionaire - but you can gradually push your pay up through the pay scale over the course of your career if you want to. Learn new skills, be pro-social and make friends with coworkers, be a good employee and team player, work hard and create value while making sure you are recognized for it, regularly apply for new jobs - if only to see how hard you can twist someone’s arm for a pay raise, and make strategic changes in your career path if you see your current one stagnating. When you have valuable skills and experience, you can use these skills to negotiate for higher pay - this is economics 101. None of it is novel or difficult to figure out. You literally just have to put in the effort when it is boring, uncomfortable, socially awkward, scary, frustrating, and annoying. 95% of people do this almost never and that is totally fine. If you like your current job and pay scale, there is no reason to change. But if you want something different, the path is right there, waiting to be walked.

Especially the idea of withholding conversation or sex as punishment.

What if the withholding is driven purely by emotion rather than being premeditated?

Why would they divorce? It sounds like OOP is doing everything his girl wants.

“I can fix him”

A lot of women get off on the idea of “flawed but ultimately good man is saved by woman’s love and support.” It’s a whole trope.

Looked at from a more autistic angle (we are on Lemmy, after all), we can imagine women’s options of men as a matrix. On one axis: is a jerk/is not a jerk. On the other: has shit together/does not have shit together.

Supposing you are a woman of average dating appeal in your market, you will initially be attracted to guys who have their shit together. This makes sense, and is the premise of your comment - why would a woman date a guy who doesn’t have his shit together? But you run into a problem: guys who have their shit together and aren’t jerks have a lot of options. They are either quickly removed from the dating market, or else they have no reason to settle down with any one particular woman - least of all one who is completely average. So an average woman looking for a long term partner among guys who have their shit together will find the market flooded with jerks.

After dating a few jerks and finding their jerk-ness doesn’t improve with time, you will start considering your other option: guys who don’t have their shit together, but are nice. Sure this guy always has a sink full of dirty dishes and has never thought of asking for a raise at his job - but he’s appreciative enough that he has any woman in his life that you can feel secure knowing he won’t beat you or belittle you or cheat on you or leave you. You just have to get him to do his dishes or whatever, which is a more solveable problem than training a jerk to not be a jerk.

And my point is that your standards for relationship fairness are not the same as mine, and I’m not accepting them as objective truth as implied by the imperative you led with two comments ago.

You can do that if you want. I’m not going to. I would work harder to get a better job so I could contribute my fair share.

I mean, you can believe that about yourself if you want. But if you’re calling me stupid, you can go fuck yourself

Misread the headline as “psychadelic”. Now I’m disappointed.

Most Americans support legal abortion, and there is no federal law against it. Abortion is legal in the united states in most of the places where people live. The reason we don’t have a federal enshrined right to abortion is because we have significant problems in election districting, voting systems, party legal structures, and campaign financing. Also because both parties like the issue staying in limbo as a useful political chess piece.

This is definitely the normie response to the actual situation. But everyone imagines someone drawing them and imagines being flattered. And they imagine the artist being hot and charming.

Someone drew me once in my life, and I still have the little index card they drew me on

I would feel like it is my responsibility to contribute equally or more. I wouldn’t feel “horrible”, but I, personally, would use it as motivation to start looking for a job that pays more.

Unpaid internships aren’t slavery because you can, ya’know, leave. Duh. This is a charity working to combat literal slavery. They probably have next to no budget. Lots of people want to do something meaningful with their lives - like combat literal slavery - and would be happy to do this. Same as how people volunteer to build houses and work in soup kitchens.

People tell other people on the internet to get a divorce because by the time you are asking the internet about your problems, you should get a divorce