What apps only work for straight white guys?

I don’t think “Americans” is a good term considering a little over half of Americans prefer non-interventionist policies. Ironically, interventionist policies are bipartisan, with a large portion of both democrats and republicans taking neo-isolationist approaches to American foreign policy. Intervention can be one of four major fields referred to in politics as DIME (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic). Examples would include UN for diplomatic (we intervene via power held in the UN), 5 eyes for informational (we allow NSA to spy on allies, as long as those allies provide us with material about our own citizens), military (republicans prefer big bombs and boots on ground, Obama loved his drone strikes), and economic like NAFTA.

I feel you may be viewing this solely from a military perspective which is why I wanted to highlight these other means. Liberal IR theory actually encourages DIME, via rule of law and consensus via other democratic nation states, I.e. if Canada, and the EU want us to intervene in the Middle East, should we mind our own business? Liberal IR theory would suggest not, and that we are not being a world player. The main hypothesis in Liberal IR theory is actually the same as its more aggressive big brother called Realism or more commonly known form as “Realpolitik”. Both posit that the international order exists in a form of anarchy and it is the responsibility (whether hegemonic or multipolar) to control this anarchy via law ( for liberalism) or via power (for realism).

Generally, more of the academics you will read on this topic whether liberal or realists will claim that Americans were pulled in via a vacuum and didn’t force its way in. There are also deeper theories in this about Bipolar and regional hegemony that better explain the post WWII world. Pre-Soviet collapse, the first world appreciated the aggressive American approach as it lent a balance against the aggressive USSR. If it weren’t for the USSR, America would have returned to the western hemisphere and not intervened unless asked to by Western Europe

Okay

Generally the most welcoming and comforting places are men’s clubs and groups, so much so, that women have fought legal battles to get into male only spaces like fraternities, gyms, clubs, societies, etc… yet there are no men fighting to get into women’s spaces. Really makes you think… the most toxic workplaces I have been involved in were the jobs I had where women dominated the demographic. There was constant bickering, backstabbing, and gossip that me and the men didn’t want to participate in and certainly couldn’t keep up with. It wasn’t until my desk got moved to a factory floor that was heavily male dominated that people cared and looked out for each other more. This may have been because of the safety culture differences of a factory floor vs an office, but it felt deeper than that. Happy hours were actually happy and not filled with angst, no office drama, I could be more open and honest because my male coworkers wouldn’t get “the ick” if I was having a bad day and actually looked out for me, etc… I think women use the “patriarchy” as this nebulous, abstract thing that they can just place all of their failures and shortcomings as a person on so that way they don’t have to face the truth that deep down they are a disgusting person.

It’s amazing how well he articulated the problem and pointed out potential solutions just for you to give a perfect example of the type of rhetoric he is talking about that drives people away from the left. Like his link, the parody writes itself…

HAMMER ABSOLUTELY WRECKED BY SCREWDRIVER AT SCREWING IN PHILLIPS HEAD SCREWS!!!

You are banned from the People’s Republic of China and all Huawei networks.

Removed by mod

Without going into detail I know there are a lot of things that are illegal to patent for more or less bureaucratic reasons, like paraphernalia, but you can get around it by saying that it’s for tobacco. Also, the military branches have representatives that work in the patent office, so if you find a unique way to kill people you are about to either become very rich, or very arrested.

But I want to be angry at you about something that is out of both of our control. Let me have my moment!

For wild animals, probably not. For domestic animals, like a dog for example, we know they have been bred to be loyal to humans. What is interesting is that some dogs prefer certain physical features and get defensive about others. My dog for instance prefers women, and in particular, brunette women, as that is what my fiancé is. But my dog freaks out when she sees a man with a beard. I don’t think my dog views brunette women as cute and men with beards as not cute, but something makes her find one type safe and attractive and another type dangerous and repulsive. What’s interesting is when I grow my beard out (about an inch or two before it’s too itchy and I shave it) she loves it and can’t stop licking my face.

You picked Batman as an example? The guy whose parents died, then he uses the vast wealth to learn and buy gadgets no one else can afford to fight crime. He constantly gets beaten right off the bat (pardon the pun) and his whole arc is to use his intellect to learn from his mistakes to do better after he fails and people get hurt. He is liked because in a world where everyone has some weird super power he is just a guy dedicated to making sure children don’t have their parents killed, too. He has a moral compass and a vision and we constantly see him fall down and get back up. A lot of the issues people had with Superman (an actual Gary Stu) were rectified with Batman. Debates on his vigilantism have made him both a loved and hated character. The question is constantly asked if he might be doing more harm than good. He has doubts and questions himself, he makes mistakes, he isn’t universally loved, he is no where near a Gary or Mary Sue.