this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
556 points (98.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
7324 readers
4026 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Women do not want to be approached in public.
We're better off regulating dating apps and predatory buisness practices, because people prefer to use apps.
Women are human individuals and not a single-minded monolith.
What women universally don't want is to feel threatened, creeped out or objectified. It is perfectly possible to talk to someone without doing any of these. Though it gets a lot easier when you view them as humans.
Women as a whole want different things, and often don't know what they want from moment to moment. In my experience, most women prefer to be approached in public under some circumstances, and what those circumstances are differs wildly from woman to woman.
women ought to have a signal that they are open to being approached, like a PvP flag or something
I said elsewhere that writing a good profile is a skill many people have neither the aptitude nor training for, and thus fuck it all up.
Talking to strangers in public? Also a skill, and I'd say a much more difficult one with much higher stakes.
I've known charismatic sensitive people that can read a scene and chat up people. That's an outlier. Most people are bad at all of that.
also, remember the "man or bear? Definitely the bear" thing from a while ago? Still a thing.
I missed the part where the person your responding to said in public?
Go to meetups, the climbing gym, run clubs, volunteering, language class, literally anywhere you meet people
When & who it is/is not appropriate to approach is a totally separate issue from what I'm talking about.
I think the problem has more to do with the expectations of meeting people via dating apps vs organically irl, especially through common interests/activities.
Also, let's be real, regulating Capitalism does not work (look around).
*looks around*
It seems to work fine around me. I peeked at your profile to confirm my assumption that you're American, and it seems I'm correct. I'd say it's partly a cultural issue in your country. The whole rugged individualism thing leads to a whole lot of anti-regulation sentiment. In my country even the ultraconservative "let's throw the gays in the oven and deport all black people to Africa" party isn't considering privatizing healthcare or education. The classical liberals are considering this, but this is where having a sane election system comes in. Since neither the conservatives nor the socdems agree, it's pretty hard for them to enact anything even if they do win an election, because "winning" an election usually means like ~30-40% of parliament seats and the ruling coalition is always a minimum of 2 parties, often 3. Plus the president's one and only power is that he can tell them to fuck off if a law seems unreasonable.
We currently have people from 6 parties in parliament, plus some people who were either thrown out of their party, or left it willingly.
We're pretty good at making noise if we don't like something, and while a lot of people complain about our MPs and ministers getting paid so much, it means they can live well enough without taking bribes. Party donations have limits that can get people into actual trouble if exceeded, and individual campaign donations aren't a thing. Political corruption gets the party fined and potentially individuals punished too. Even in municipal government corruption cases. There was a case that took several years, where a businessman approached a politician in the same party as the capital city's mayor, implying that if the mayor were to reduce certain legal costs on the department store his company was building, the party would receive a major donation - which it then did. The party got fined nearly 10x what they made from this deal, and two people received probationary sentences. This party, formerly a major player, can now barely afford their next election campaign. The company that owns the future department store has been fined more than once for not getting it done as fast as promised - because it's in a prominent location along the promenade.
We have tons of consumer protection laws too. Plus a government entity for consumer protection so you don't have to hire a lawyer and go to court to get your justice in a lot of cases. Similar for employment rights, etc. Fire someone without a paper trail to prove their incompetence or malice? You'll be paying them a hefty severance.
There's a big gap between what you're describing and the USA. We pretty regularly see fines that are a fraction of what the crime earned, if it's prosecuted at all. We also have an utterly insane far right wing party and a spineless right party.
We should break up match group. It's not a whole ass monopoly, but it has such a big market share it doesn't really need to compete much. So it offers garbage, makes a lot of money because there aren't a lot of other like options (and people don't realize the apps are all owned by Match)
Yeah, that's my point. It's not that capitalism can't be regulated, it's that the US can't regulate capitalism sufficiently enough.
Agreed. So many monopolies out there that people barely realize are monopolies because a parent company owns a bunch of different "competing" brands rather than running everything under one brand name. Match Group is one of them.
Take a class.