This is a fascinating take, I have honestly never heard it before but it is thought-provoking and makes a lot of sense. I have long believed that there are a lot of ways in which government enforces and maintains certain systems in which already-wealthy people become wealthier. And I think you are right that corporations are a key one. I'm not sure I agree 100%, though. I think the problem is not the mere recognization of corporations, but rather, the favoring of them in tax and/or legal structures. For example one major inconsistency in the current environment in the US at least, is that a human cannot "break even" without paying any tax, unless leading an extraordinarily constrained lifestyle specifically chosen to avoid tax liability. I.e. the way most people live, working and earning wages / salary to cover basic living expenses, it is not possible because of payroll tax and other taxes (sales tax, property tax, etc.), even if you keep your income low enough that you avoid income tax. This is true no matter how poor you are. On the other hand, corporations can get their tax rate closer to zero, at least on the income end, and this is because they're allowed to deduct ALL their expenses, whereas individual people cannot. So for example the corporation can deduct costs like real estate / rent, and cost of employees, but an employee cannot deduct their home expenses or the cost of food, even though everyone needs to spend money on housing and food. And payroll tax makes it even worse because it has no deductions at all. So this creates a double-standard in which wealth accumulates in the hands of corporations more than in the hands of individuals. I don't necessarily think that our society would favor corporations so much if the tax code were reformed. I would prefer a tax code in which people at a relatively low level of wealth who are just breaking even, pay a tax rate of zero. You could achieve this even with consumption-based taxes like sales tax or carbon tax, by issuing rebates accounting for the typical tax paid as a portion of a base-line cost-of-living. You could also raise taxes on corporations. For example, I would love to make it so that corporations cannot deduct employee compensation as an expense, if it is above a certain point. I think around $100k, adjusting for inflation over time, is a reasonable amount because no one really needs a salary higher than that to function. So by disincentivizing that it would make corporations more averse to paying out such high salaries and that would make it less likely wealth would accumulate in the hands of people who already have it. Either people's salaries would be lowered, or the corporations paying obscenely high salaries would have more wealth taxed away from them.

@@AlexZorach Regulations, taxes, permits etc, are there to help the big corporations and hurt the mom and pop businesses. That’s why it’s better to have less government, and not having the government sanction corporations is what works. Then there are no corporations. Or, it could work to do what our country did in the beginning. Early on, the only corporations the governments chartered were to build a large project like a bridge or canal. When the project is over so is the corporation. Those were the only US business corporations.

like we can still make biological distinctions between cis and trans people, but I think it's wrong to call them the way society tends to classify people

a trans woman is just another type of woman and a trans man is a type of man, so yes, trans guys are guys and trans women are women, nonbinary is nonbinary

There's no such thing as being too late when it comes to watching or commenting on my videos! I always appreciate when people watch my older videos, and I still get notifications about comments on old videos and do my best to reply, so thank you!!!

This is a really great insight, thanks for contributing! This all makes sense, and you have articulated one of the mechanisms through which dating sites lead to unfulfilling interactions, beyond what I talked about in the video. It makes sense that having to repeatedly ask yourself: "Do I want to continue this interaction?" could be mentally exhausting, especially if you are dealing with many such connections on a dating site, and all or most of them are sort of marginal or underwhelming, which I think is the experience of most women. Although my experience on dating sites has been pretty different (usually getting only sparse or infrequent attention at all), I have had other aspects of my life, like some professional situations, where I'm inundated with kind of low-quality attention like this, and that process of having to continually ask whether or not I want to continue the interaction can become exhausting. Also, when you have a lot of connections like this that are all existing primarily online, pouring more time and energy into that selection process means more time staring at a screen. Meeting people through the in-person activity is all-around better. Not only do you avoid that decision-making process, like you referenced, but you also are out and about doing things face-to-face, being more physically active (even if just at a social event that is not necessarily athletic, you're probably walking around and moving around more) and not staring at a screen. And for me that's a pretty important improvement too.

This is a great comment with so much in it, thanks! I agree that the ghosting can affect your self-esteem. Like even if you know the behavior is common, it never feels good. I also know what you mean about men mass-writing. When I have gotten messages from men, a large portion of them have been lower-effort, more generic sorts of things. Sometimes it can seem dehumanizing even. I also like what you added about how men can be deceitful by trying to tell someone what they want to hear. I have occasionally had women try to do that with me, but I think that problem becomes worse when there is a big number disparity. And then it becomes a huge waste of your time and effort, because you have to expend effort trying to sort through interactions, discerning who is being more honest and sincere, and it is harder to do this online when you have neither the nonverbal cues, nor the social accountability of knowing people in common. I also agree that it's an illusion that there is a "perfect person" out there that you just need to find. I didn't really get at this in the video, but another huge problem I have with dating sites is that it creates this sort of "window shopping" headspace where you're looking through people for the "perfect one", but you often end up discounting people for reasons you never would in real life. For example, dating sites immediately show you someone's age and then a bunch of text and images that the person specifically showed you. In real life, you see none of that, you just see a person's body language, vibe, hear their voice. It's an instant snapshot that conveys so much more information, but while hiding things that people might use to disqualify a person if searching through dating profiles. People end up making very different choices in these different scenarios, and at least for me, I think the whole process works better when in person.

Haha. Maybe, but I actually disagree for two reasons. One, I think, more so than that message, it needs to be said because there are a HUGE number of people nowadays who seem to think online dating is normal, or even a good thing or an improvement, and I've noticed that many of these same people will spend hours complaining about dating or about men or about women or about some issue or other that they are having, that to me, seems specific to online dating and directly caused by dating and that would be solved entirely or at least greatly reduced by only dating IRL. Also, on a certain level, I think sexting or cybersex is actually less bad, relative to in-person sex, than online dating is bad relative to IRL dating. Sexting or cybersex is something that you can engage in with anyone, including people you have strong in-person chemistry and a strong "real world" relationship with. And it's also a very safe activity: it doesn't spread STI's and can't get anyone pregnant and, although people can get pushy about it and overstep boundaries and stuff, the stakes are lower for boundary-crossing behaviors. Online dating is different in that people have a serious intention of meeting people IRL, and they often do this, and they often then go and have sex. And in doing so, they open themselves up to all sorts of problems and harm, everything from sexual assault to being ghosted to having people lie about STI's or birth control, to all sorts of other rude behavior. So it's like, the stakes are higher, the real-world risk is there, but in the early phases of dating you also get all the bad communication and lack of accountability that comes with these more anonymous, isolated online interactions. So to me it really seems like a worst-of-both-worlds and I would say the analogy is not really a good one.

Haha, it's a self-portrait of Daniel Anton, maybe he is watching you. He was an artist, art dealer, and art restorer from Denver, PA, if you want to look him up. He was a really nice person who loved food, gardening, art, and dance, and I am grateful to have known him when he was still alive. His spirit will bless you with the ability to grow lots of good fruit if you decide to do so in your garden!

Exactly, this younger generation wants instant gratification at the expense of other employees that have put the time in. We all had to start at the bottom.

because doctors could make a mistake in defining sex, some afab people discover male testicles for example inside their body without knowing about it all their lives, because some intersex people could forcibly hang this label, because some could change some of their sex characteristics so their sex will no longer be female or male

Thanks, and yes! I definitely think my perspective here is underrepresented on the internet, which is why I made this video! People focus too much on this broad, general idea of whether someone is being too generous or letting people use them or whether favors in general are good or bad, and the answer is always that it depends on the details. That's a great example and a great point you made about the worst favors being ones where the person doesn't even need or appreciate it so much. Like if it's an example like my free tomatoes it doesn't matter, but if it's something that takes considerable effort like you drawing a portrait, it's a huge waste. And the converse is that sometimes it's even valuable or important to me to do things that are inconvenient or a lot of work or effort, like if I know it is really important to the other person.

Thanks, yay, glad to be able to help. And yeah, I find the common / widespread definitions of transmedicalism seem very abstract and technical, and they don't make the connection between the definition and the stance on medical care, to be as immediately evident. That was part of my motivation for making this video!

Yeah, there can be moderates in both parties, and of course a lot of moderates are independents or feel closer aligned to third parties not well-represented in the US.

Thank you!!!

Unfortunately the Indian grocery, Apna Bazaar, has moved out since I made this video. The Chinese and Middle Eastern groceries are located on East Main Street not far from Tyre Ave, and the Mexican store is on Chapel just north of Main Street, so if you are within walking distance of that area you'll be within walking distance of those two stores, as well as the Newark Natural Foods Coop. There is a second Mexican store farther southeast, off Marrows road, north of Route 4, but that area is a bit less walkable and farther from most of the walkable town center.

Thanks for the tips and making this video! My gf and I are considering Newark as a place to live. Your video helped us learn more about the area. It sounds nice!

These are interesting points you make. What you say sounds somewhat compelling, but wouldn't it also be true that any man (or someone such as me who has a lot of experience living as a man) reading an article specifically about issues that women struggle with, published in a feminist publication, be likely to be the same, i.e. someone who probably already is much more aware than normal about women's perspectives? And this then makes me wonder, who even is the audience then? A lot of these articles seem to me like they're not really accomplishing anything good, because they're unlikely to ever reach the audience who most needs to hear the message. I agree with what you said about my main difficulty with articles like this, coming from a place of the author not acknowledging the harm of over-accomodation, and related to that, not drawing clear cut-offs about where over-accomodation begins. So much feminist rhetoric takes the form of "Be as accomodating as possible. You're probably not being accomodating enough." and I also have, a number of times, seen certain feminists ask for things that I think most people would think are unreasonable (such as saying it is never okay for any man to address any woman in public that he doesn't already know, ever.) So...given this context, I think when someone writes an article like the one this video is about, it ironically shows a lack of their understanding of other people's perspectives.

@@AlexZorach I did not know the context of the article, but now that you explained it, I agree with what you wrote. "Who is the audience?" is a good question. It certainly wouldn't reach the men she was complaining about from your description. If the audience was other women, it would have been worded differently than you described. But certainly, within any group there are people who will be unreasonable. And perhaps that is what you came across.

I think you are grasping the distinction between these two concepts, capitalism and the free market, similarly to how I see them. But I don't agree fully on your last sentence. A lack of freedom in the market (i.e. due to monopoly or other anti-competetive behaviors, or too much government intervention) can be one factor causing problems with capitalism. However, there are other problems with it, some problems that are inherent to it, like the way it tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of people who already have it, and I think that for this reason it needs to be balanced by other factors, such as progressive taxation.

Me too lol. Soon as he mentioned this video I flew here first thing.

@@Profitglutton90 We have to support these people! He was ahead of the game too!

Thank you, it's always good to hear that other people are recommending my videos!