In the music video? Yeah, that's not going to last for anyone, lol. But for what I was talking about above, I know people who have been doing that at the same stores weekly since covid began and have never had a single issue besides an evil eye stare.

Nah, there was never any point where Russia was going to lose this unless countries other than Ukraine joined in with more than just grift money and weapon donations but with actual troops on a large scale (beyond just small scale mercs that are easy to deny). And fortunately that wasn't too likely to happen because even the most belligerent NATO warhawks knew it would be seriously risking global nuclear war. So many internet armchair generals, mostly NAFO dipshits but plenty of Russia-aligned SMO-watchers too, were (and are) way too focused on the lines on the map, the fine details of kettles and who held what small towns, etc, all without recognizing the bigger picture: long term attrition. In that sense, Russia has always had the upper hand by a large margin. That's not going to change either. Russia is, as you say, "slowly getting the upper hand," in the more obvious ways but this was always what was in the cards and it's just going to continue in that same inevitable direction. The only way Russia will lose this war is if there is some major change in how things are set up on the global stage.

Also it's not really true to say that Russia is asking for more than they hold because even if some areas are still contested, Ukraine has no chance of hanging on to them. As others have noted, this is a very generous offer and I expect it's only being made because Russia is plainly aware that Ukraine will not accept it (in fact Ukraine cannot accept it because those who fund them, those who are using Ukraine as their proxy and who are ultimately responsible for all this, wouldn't allow them to). That's the only way in which this offer is "dishonest," if you consider it dishonest for Russia to propose a plan they know full well that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of Ukraine accepting.

one party is clearly more zealous about ending democracy than the other.

You don't get it. Bourgeois democracy is a sham. It has never served working people the way they tell you it has. "One party is clearly" blah blah blah. No. Both parties are playing one of the two roles of the "good cop/bad cop" routine. That's all this is! It can be true that one side can cause more damage while in power than the other side, but at this point, it's just batty (and wrong) to think that the side with the blue donkey logo is going to do less harm. Even if we forget that it's the latter side currently funding and helping orchestrate a fucking genocide, it only ramped up and made worse all the terrible policies implemented when the red elephant had ostensible control. Don't fall for it. Both "sides" (aka both cops) only want to fuck you over and they're doing it as a collaborative effort. Voting for either of them only sends the message that you have indeed fallen for the act and that you'll keep supporting them as long as they keep up that act, which of course they will. If you feel that voting serves a purpose, or that it can be still be used for good, then vote for someone who actually shares your ideals, which neither fascist cop does.

lol, reread what you're responding to, comrade. Friendly fire.

Long reply incoming.

im extremely skeptical of fasting as being a universally applicable “booster”.

It's not universal, but it is broadly beneficial for most people, especially people with western diets. You can be skeptical of that, but it really is backed up by the science, with very clear physiological mechanisms explaining how and why it's beneficial. Anecdotally, almost everyone who gives it a try will also have positive things to say about it. Normally, I wouldn't really count that anecdotal thing in, but I'm not just talking about people trying new internet trends here, we're talking about something on a scale of (for example) hundreds of millions or more Muslims who do fasting as a spiritual practice and religious observance.

As far as coinciding with the tendencies you mentioned, once again... fasting is not some new fad. It may have gained some mainstream popularity (as it has in the past since fads are often cyclic) and is recently getting discussed in the same rounds along with actual fad diets, but like I mentioned before, fasting is something that almost every major religion has incorporated in some way. You talk about listening to our bodies and the folly of trying to repress our desires but a major, even basic part of listening to our bodies is learning how to balance our desires. I'd agree that there has been a puritanical current especially in American culture that demonizes natural and healthy desires resulting in their repression in deeply unhealthy ways. But that doesn't mean that overindulgence doesn't exist or that it isn't a major problem for a lot of people, or even that there isn't also a precedent for overindulgence on a cultural level as well, given the capitalist emphasis on consumerism. Despite the bourgeois shitheads in the OP article, it's no secret that traditionally the way to show off wealth has been through flaunting excess.

As with most things, there is a healthy balance that needs to be found between short term desires and long term health. I'd hope that isn't a controversial thing to say. The exact location of that balance varies with the individual, but to look at modern western diets along with all the severe health consequences they are known to be responsible for and conclude that the problem is the suppression of desire is just... well, misguided to put it lightly. Like we know the addictive nature of the processed sugars that are pumped into food for the express purpose of getting people to keep eating long after they've had even ten times the amount that would be healthy to have in a day. It isn't a person's fault for having the desire to eat more because it is literally a physiological addiction, that again, has been intentionally manufactured to drive consumption and therefore profits. But the immediate answer for someone suffering from that addiction is absolutely not to give in to the desire and just eat more. No more than the answer for someone with an opiate or alcohol addiction is to just indulge when the desire is felt, but rather to make an attempt to curb the consumption of opiates/alcohol/sugar despite the sometimes overwhelming desire to give into it. Listening to your body is much more about recognizing what it's telling you about its long-term well-being than it is about sating its immediate desires. And for the vast majority of people especially in the west/global north, fasting is a positive way to respond to the malaise their body is screaming at them with. Almost everyone who really tries fasting, including people in this thread, report that they feel much better as a result of doing so. That is listening to your body.

there have been studies associating this stuff with an increased chance of heart disease. That study was specifically about intermittent fasting, but if someone is already at risk it doesn’t seem like a good idea.

I'd take a look at that study then, but with an extremely skeptical eye, considering there have been literally scores of studies saying the exact opposite. Thee major lifestyle element that most strongly predicts longevity is restricted caloric intake. In other words, of all the factors that we have been able to find that correlate with people living longer lives, is people who have taken in fewer calories over their life. This is well known as any quick search can quickly confirm for you. As another obvious example, again, we know through countless studies with overwhelming evidence how bad a high intake of sugar is, how it directly leads to heart disease and of course diabetes. Diabetes (specifically type II), as you may know, is epidemic in the US. Diabetes essentially is insulin resistance, and the way to fix insulin resistance is to stop all consumption of sugars/carbohydrates for a time, ie, to fast. I'd recommend looking up "fasting + insulin resistance." This is all stuff well known to science and medicine, but there is so much more I could get into. Like what we now know about autophagy and how fasting massively speeds it up, the role of mTOR signaling pathway in fasting, or the evolutionary reasons that fasting is good for a species that through most of its existence experienced famines where it had to cope with surviving without food for lengths of time. (The "3 square meals a day" thing is a very recent phenomenon). I'd post links of the many many studies that back all this up if it's absolutely necessary, but it can all be easily confirmed with a web search. Whatever studies you're talking about, if they are as you say, are in complete contradiction of well-established consensus.

Finally, it’s just not practical for everyone. Lots of people have gut issues or physical disorders that make fasting significantly more painful and impractical than it would be for others. I can’t go too long without eating - my body starts becoming extremely nauseous. I assume this is true for a lot of people and not just me.

Fasting is not appropriate for everyone in every circumstance and I never implied otherwise. There are absolutely people who should not do long fasts, and though fewer, there are even people who shouldn't do intermittent fasting. Definitely. But they are in the minority. It's funny that you mention gut issues because one of the first and most successful methods for treating the most common gut issues (I know a number of people with colitis and IBS, the latter I used to have myself) is fasting and elimination diets. This is what gets recommended by doctors, and for good reason. I have no idea what your issues are, so I wouldn't presume to tell you that fasting would be the answer for you, but something to consider is that almost every treatment for an ailment will cause initial discomfort. For many people who experience that normal nausea upon forgoing food longer than they're used to, including me, it's because it's literally a type of withdrawal. Your body has adapted to having food at the frequent intervals we usually eat, particularly carbohydrates which can be quickly converted to energy. Fat can also be used as a source of energy but your body won't tap into that longer-term energy storage mechanism until the carbohydrates have been used up. If your body is not used to doing that, it will be uncomfortable. But so too is it uncomfortable for a brain used to a steady supply of external opioids to go without them until it adapts to using the endogenous ones again.

As for practicality, sure. That's a different issue. Fasting takes a commitment and very likely will include that initial discomfort. For people barely scraping by and having to work multiple jobs and keep their energy constantly up, taking the downtime that one would need for (as an example) a 3-day fast just isn't feasible. That said, if they had some respite for a while and some time to tend to their health, most of them would find that fasting would help them. The same way someone who needs coffee to function and go to work but gets no sleep would find that if they could quit caffeine and get better sleep, it would help them cope with work in the long term, but quitting coffee just isn't feasible in order to keep up with the necessary grind. On the other hand, someone who is in a relatively easy position to give up coffee and get better sleep would not be listening to their body or doing themselves any favors by using the excuse "ugh, I just feel like crap when I don't get my caffeine." I'm not implying that's you, but it definitely is some people who would pooh-pooh something genuinely positive because it seems uncomfortable at first.

Overall I’m sure it works for you but it’s just too much of a “self-help-book” “minimalist”-coded solution for me to see it as a universally good practice.

It seems like rather black-and-white thinking to keep referring to it as being either a universally good practice or typical self-help-book bunkum. It is not universal. But to view it through the lens of being "minimalist" or worse, JP-esque self-help bullshit is a very narrow and inaccurate way to look at something that has such a long history, cultural significance, established medical use, and overwhelming scientific consensus.

There should be text with a link right beneath the video that says "Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification" that will make it audible.

just a friendly heads up, I think you misgendered the person you were referring to.

I'd say this clip adds a bit of important context behind the memeification of that speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ6iKmURxEc