Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'GMD Social Forum' started by Zephyrus, Jan 20, 2015.
Account terminated for shitting on Jessica Yaniv. Well, at least she was cucked for a worthy cause.
I don’t see how you can make such blanket statements when there are so many contingent factors and when the study you cite is limited by multiple variables including time constraints—i.e. maybe what it suggests is that limited exposure to forest bathing is good for mental health, but extended exposure isn’t. You’re making huge qualitative leaps.
As I already said, recent studies suggest that mental health issues such as depression are worse among rural residents than urban. Furthermore, actual access to medical care is far more limited in rural areas than it is in urban.
Finally, I don’t know what you mean by “natural opportunities” other than running through greenery. Cities like Boston, Houston, NYC, etc. have running paths, they have plenty of room for people to exercise, and they afford plenty of opportunities for people to walk on a daily basis. Lots of people in the cities don’t hop into their cars to go to the store, as many do in rural areas. And even if people do take public transit, they’re often running to catch the bus.
Didn't know who that was until I scrolled down to read the brazillian wax bit. Not sure whether its pedophiles or the overly-litigious deserve that deserve ropes the most.
Imagine both rolled into one fat degenerate.
You always making one big correlation between two distant ass cultures
BTW, it's hard keeping up with this damn site with a jobbie, how have you adults done this for so long?
Japan is more densely urbanized than the US. If lead from fuel usage was the cause for the rise in crime in the US, why wouldn't we see a similar effect in other industrialized nations?
The studies are mixed on where things are worse, other than "Premature death," which may be linked to depression, but it's so far been tied to ongoing economic depression in more rural and semi-urban areas away from the coasts. Yes, access to medical care among many other things is more geographically limited. But there are other limiting factors that may be more salient. Not to mention that for the chronically poor, getting across a large city is no less difficult than getting between cities in more rural areas.
There are large inequities between what the majority of people in large cities experience and what the small number of successful professionals experience. The working poor don't have time and/or money to take advantage of gyms or parks/walking paths. The indigent mostly won't take advantage of them. I don't see how riding the subway or sitting in traffic is "healthy." There's no automatic improvement in diet simply by being "in" a major urban area. Major cities are a playground for the successful few.
The fact that this wasn't the original rule is preposterous.
Actually, it is less financially difficult if you're comparing the price of public transit to the price of gas for commuting by car for an hour each way.
Your rhetoric is misleading and obfuscating. You make it sound as though the people who get to enjoy public spaces in cities are some privileged minority, which isn't true at all. Even the lower middle class has time for exercise.
I can only infer that your judgment of what counts as the "successful few" is also skewed. I assume that you'd include graduate students in that group; yet, being a member of that group (as are you, but I think you tend to extricate yourself from it), I can attest to the fact that grad students barely scrape by financially. I'm in the minority of that group purely because my wife works in corporate tax. All my colleagues either pay for cheaper housing, take second jobs, or make do by other means. And yet grad students routinely exercise and work out. Having a lower-middle class income doesn't mean you have no time for physical health. You make it sound like exercise is a luxury only the wealthy can afford. That's simply not true.
Finally, nothing you're saying suggests that the physical health of rural residents is somehow going to surpass that of urban residents in twenty years. Even if all your critiques of urban living stand, rural living offers no correctives.
I'm sure, but how many rural people are commuting that far?Even if they are, the health effect is a wash even if it's financially more difficult (I don't know the cumulative cost of bus fares/subway usage; gas prices fluctuate but are often cheaper compared to large coastal city gas prices, but maybe by not enough).
While graduate students are financially restricted, they do get access to university amenities (which usually includes a conveniently located exercise facility) at a minimum, and are cognitively and typically conscientiously gifted enough to find time to work on their health (although my experience is that there's some extremes at each end in this category of people).
Lower middle class persons might have time, but will they have the interest, finances, or general access? I know when I have worked at minimum wage jobs I could count on one hand the number of people I knew who discussed regular exercise. They go home and watch TV or go out to eat or maybe attend their kids extra curriculars. Of course, exercise and getting out in nature aren't necessarily the same thing, but in terms of access to do either in an urban environment there are many barriers, both material and mental (I'm physically tired from my job, exercise is for rich people, for white people, etc) for the indigent and working poor. At least in smaller towns, one doesn't have to go out of one's way to get a bit more nature in their field of view. For instance, I can stand in the middle of my street and turn in a circle and always have more trees than I can accurately count in my field of view, and I'm more or less in the middle of town, and there are whole neighborhoods like this. The only ones not like this are brand new exurb developments where they bulldoze everything and build a bunch of medium-large houses on small lots.
You can't tell me these different environments don't have different or have negligible effects on the psyche:
It's a matter of the old, sickly rural boomers dying off. Age plays a substantial role in the more rural/urban differences in medical diagnoses among the many metabolic diseases.
Damn, did the video get cucked or her whole channel?
Just the video, for now that is. Her old videos still show up in my subs and all seem to be working fine. Wouldn't be surprising in the least if the usual vermin go after her whole channel next, though just like her Twitter.
Fucking Kim Kelly writes for Teen Vogue
Kim Kelly as in that retarded cunt that writes for metal sites?
Yep. Kim Kelly as in the one that did press for Anal Cunt then tries to trap Dragonforce in an interview because of a joke band some of the members used to be in had racist lyrics. Also the same one that is constantly going on about how nobody should make a big deal that she's a woman into metal (not that anyone was in the first place) then interviews Liz Buckingham and only asks her what its like being a woman in metal. Her Twitter feed is pretty great when she doesn't set it to private. Major fascism fetish. She fucking dreams about it.
This article is pretty amusing:
So by definition anarchism is also inherently anticommunism? Funny how that contradiction in ideology is always left out.
There's a schism in communism between anti-statist anarcho-communism, which has its own variety of shapes and forms between Luddism and technophiles (from Emma Goldman to factions of today's Pirate parties), and statist communism, of which orthodox adherents are stalinists. These disagreements date back to the 19th century and Marx himself was caught up in such debates with the Fourierites and others.
Yeah I'm aware. Anarcho-communism is pure utopianism though, I don't think it has ever actually manifested itself, but statist-communism certainly has.
Marx was always notoriously vague about what would follow the revolution. If you want to trace the origins of the disagreements between anarchism and communism, read the exchanges between Marx and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (if you haven't already). The two forms do find commonality in their resistance to bourgeois social order, but their proposals for dealing with hierarchy differ.
But the city as such doesn't prevent one from going running. You talk as though an urban environment makes running unappealing. It's just a matter of finding a route and spaces conducive to physical activity.
NYC has Central Park and other public spaces, Boston has the Common, Houston has Memorial Park. These places don't charge admission, and if people want to see greenery they can run from their neighborhoods to the parks. If they live too far away to do that, then chances are they can already see green spaces.
The two photos you pasted below are snapshots of commercial and residential locations that by no means capture the fluidity and heterogeneity that cities offer.
I'm sure they do have different effects, but I'm unwilling to say that the second two environments are de facto better for mental health than the first two. A lot of it depends on the person. The effects each environment has will differ from person to person, and there's nothing convincing (in my opinion) that suggests exposure to greenery is, on average, better for mental health.
Yes I get it.
Just pointing out that if communism (or "orthodox Marxism") is for the oppression of capitalists and for a dictatorship of the proletariat, that should mean anarchism is inherently anti-communism because, according to the article, anarchism is opposed to oppression and anti-democratic ideologies.