I feel like certain extreme adventures should involve waiving your right to rescue. Why should four plus competent, trained, healthy people have to risk their lives to save someone who is most likely incompetent, untrained, and unhealthy - but merely buying their way into extreme conditions?

If I decided I want to make a trek across the Sahara using nothing but authentic 1000 B.C equipment, why should anyone have to endanger themselves to save me? If I want an extreme outdoors adventure, isn't foregoing rescue really adding to the appeal?

But the worst thing is that those who survive will just have the ultimate accolade, in their minds. Of course out of all the cool places on Earth to go, dumbass shallow LinkedIn-posting, Medium-blogging C-suite "grind" types have to pick the place that elevates them above all the other peons (aided of course, by some peons they underpaid to take them there). And when their own hubris endangers them, rather than accept their fate, they demand yet more peons endanger themselves to rescue them. It's like a microcosm of the whole world. Fuck these people. You sign up to summit Mount Everest - you're signing up to maybe die. Isn't that what you wanted? Real risk? Real adventure? Or did you just want an appearance of it that you could repost to others in your life, like everything else? Fuck

You said the wishing in itself should be condemned - the wishing, in this case, referring to the 4th item on my list. It seemed like your reasoning was that the wishing is a bad mindset, so I was trying to illustrate how the wishing is not the same as having a bad mindset. If you agree I've done that, then mustn't it be the case that the wishing itself should not be condemned?

I agree none of that is getting frustrated. That was exactly my point, that the wishing itself is not necessarily always coinciding with frustration, therefore the wishing itself is not what needs condemnation, the frustration is.

You are still conflating "I would like it if I could make my partner orgasm with my bare hands" and "why won't my partner orgasm the way I want to" as beliefs that must always go together. But it is totally possible to simultaneously believe and act on all the following:

1. How can I pleasure my partner more?
2. I love making my partner cum with the vibrator
3. I don't expect my partner to cum the way I want them to
4. I would like it if I could make my partner orgasm in more ways than they currently do (i.e with my bare hands rather than a vibrator)

Isn't it? At least, I see no reason for mutual exclusivity of these

For sure for sure. I hope that my agreement with this sentiment was clear in my post. But there's nothing about that sentiment that precludes someone from also reasonably wishing that they could bring their partner to orgasm without non-organic, non-self implements.

I'm saying, people shouldn't be averse to using the vibrator - but just because they shouldn't be averse to it doesn't mean that it's bad, dumb, or unreasonable to also wish to not always use the vibrator to orgasm or to have your partner orgasm.

The fact that its impractical doesn't make it a shameful desire that should be eradicated. Some people wish their partner would fill them up with like, 4 cups of semen. That's unrealistic (impossible). If they say "I don't want to fuck you because you never produce 4 cups of semen like how I'd prefer", then that is stupid and bad behavior, just like not making your partner orgasm with a vibrator just because you wish they didn't need it is stupid and bad. But the wishing in itself should not be condemned.

I think the assumption that just because the wish exists, anger also exists is part of the problem that leads to condemnation of the wish. "And if you feel that not being able to make your partner cum the way you want to is a problem? Grow the fuck up." - absolutely true, but just because someone wants their partner to cum in a different way than they actually do, doesn't mean they see it as a problem. It may just be a desire or fantasy. Additionally, if that desire is central to their own sexual satisfaction, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to say that that's not wrong of them but rather an irreconcilable sexual difference. If someone really likes fingerbanging girls, but their girl hates it, that's not a situation where either of them is in the wrong or needs to change what they're attracted to - it's just an incompatibility.

While I agree that feeling EMASCULATED by a vibrator is ridiculous, as men are not meant to have vibrating functionality, I think just as many women would feel just as bummed out by it if men did a similar thing. Imagine if a man only got like half of the way there fucking you, then pulled out and was like "oh quick get that super tight fleshlight out so I can cum". Is it really so hard to understand why that might feel bad? Like sure, this fleshlight thing may be tighter than any biological vagina ever could be, but does that really make it not bother you? And even if it doesn't bother you, wouldn't it be nice if that wasn't always necessary?

Because although penises aren't meant to vibrate, and vaginas aren't meant to squeeze like a tight fist, penises ARE "supposed" to please vaginas and vice versa, and if the literal climax of pleasure is not attainable by those means, why are we acting like that's a silly thing to wish was different?

Don't all people, regardless of their own sex or gender, or the gender of their partner, enjoy the idea of bringing their partner to orgasm using their own body and not a device? I have made my girlfriend orgasm manually, orally, penetratively, and with vibrators. They're all fun ways to do it! But if we could only do it with a vibrator, I'd certainly be wishing we could get there other ways too. Is that really so silly? Each method has its own charms. So it seems very insensitive to put down these feelings, and it's also gross to do it with a sports metaphor.

I once knew a lady who was terrified of red pandas for exactly this reason, the fact they would stand on two legs "like a human" despite not being human just freaked her out. So maybe there's something to it.

The feel-good (and still very fake and gay) greentexts were always the worst, and largely because of these cringe messages. Implying becoming Christian was the first step. I wouldn't be surprised if these types of posts are just grassroots conversion attempts from various evangelists.

This is PURE speculation, but I feel like this could be caused by the only people who feel comfortable getting a philosophy degree being wealthy connected people. I know a lot of people from my high school that have stereotypical "be poor forever" degrees and are doing great - but if you knew them in high school, you'd know that they had millionaire parents. All the poor kids went for safer degrees because they knew they'd need money.

To be clear: I love philosophy and think it is very valuable. But sadly it seems like something that only privileged people or the very passionate take a risk on.

This is a great example in support of something I often think about. We see our consciousness as "me" and as "the thing in charge" of the body, but really it's more of an ancillary subprocess that the body runs for its own benefit. It's just a special subprocess that does its job best when it mistakenly thinks of itself as being the boss of the body.

No wonder I find their scores so unreliable

Edit: I also now kind of want to do a web scraping project and see if there's any correlation between scores and whether the media in question is owned by Comcast or Warner Bros

Gross implications of this post unless I'm misreading it. The implication of course being that the FBI is protecting Epstein's clients but has it out for the Jan 6th people, which proves the deep state is aligned with the liberals!!!

No, the government is aligned with the powerful. The FBI can name that ICE tracking app guy, they can name all the people arrested at the BLM protests, No Kings protests, etc. The common thread is being a nobody, not political affiliation. This is because the system doesn't have a political affiliation. Its only affiliation is with power itself.

I love this comment so much. One of the biggest things that destroyed the quality of Reddit, although this is almost never talked about, was the trend of shoehorning the same topic into every subreddit, no matter how niche. Then to make matters worse, people will insist on leaving the post in an unsuitable community just because they like the sentiment of the post. But over time this means that the purpose of communities completely breaks down, and the whole site just becomes "different formats for us all to express the same take on the same current event". Absolutely insidious. Entire purpose of communities is so that people can customize their experience and see different types of content depending on what they're interested in. Forcing the same topic into every community not only makes the service insufferable, but it also means there's no point to joining small communities or contributing to them. You devolve to everyone just looking at the top most popular stuff, because all they would see anywhere else is just cutesy forced variants on that same thing anyways. Do not force topics into every community.

Again: Do not force topics into every community.