Yeah, depending on where I'm going, there are specific areas you can bring your car around to if you're deciding to camp in the car lol parking lots, in my experience, are for day trippers and people looking to drop their car off and hoof it to the stream for fishing or go deeper to camp/backpack.
Edit: West Coast/Rockies and foothills mainly for me.
Batman could have done more good as Bruce Wayne and instead dressed up like a bat to beat up street level thugs. If he was real, I don't think it would make a difference what time period he was in, he'd still be traumatized by his parents death and decide to dress up like a bat to beat up street level thugs.
If you asked them why, they likely couldn't give you an answer, or they'd rationalize one on the spot without realizing it.
We have millions of years of evolution telling us it's better to be grouped up to sleep, and just a couple generations at most for recreational camping etiquette.
There's probably different levels of this instinct that correlate to experience camping out in the boonies, as well as the size of your own party. For instance, an inexperienced individual or small family probably would want the security of being near other people. But more experienced people want the solitude, and especially so for larger groups.
Chalk it up to someone not too familiar with camping.
I wouldn't judge someone who shows up to a campground at 430 am too harshly...
They're probably running on pure lizard brain at that point.
Like, depending on your definitional of rational, there was/is a reason for this behavior, but it's not like someone intentionally decides to do it. It's just autopilot.
A lot of what we do is just autopilot and rationalizing it later. Shits crazy interesting, but we can't really study it because it's not ethical to just cut people's brains in half for no reason other than to gain knowledge. And there was only a brief period it was a valid medical treatment for things like epilepsy.
Sperry performed another similar experiment in humans to further study the ability of the right hemisphere to recognize words. During that experiment, Sperry asked volunteers to place their left hand into a box with different tools that they could not see. After that, the participants saw a word that described one of the objects in the box in their left field of view only. Sperry noted that most participants then picked up the needed object from the box without seeing it, but if Sperry asked them for the name of the object, they could not say it and they did not know why they were holding that object. That led Sperry to conclude that the right hemisphere had some language recognition ability, but no speech articulation, which meant that the right hemisphere could recognize or read a word, but it could not pronounce that word, so the person would not be able to say it or know what it was.
In his last series of experiments in humans, Sperry showed one object to the right eye of the participants and another object to their left eye. Sperry asked the volunteers to draw what they saw with their left hand only, with closed eyes. All the participants drew the object that they saw with their left eye, controlled by the right hemisphere, and described the object that they saw with their right eye, controlled by the left hemisphere. That supported Sperry´s hypothesis that the hemispheres of brain functioned separately as two different brains and did not acknowledge the existence of the other hemisphere, as the description of the object did not match the drawing. Sperry concluded that even though there were no apparent signs of disability in people with a severed corpus callosum, the hemispheres did not communicate, so it compromised the full function of the brain.
I just really liked the idea that OP thought they were exaggerating the timeline with that, when they were still waaaaaay off on how baked in that behavior really was.
Modern life makes a lot more sense when you realize we really weren't built for this shit. On an evolutionary timescale we went from taking a shit while walking like a horse to Star Trek in an afternoon.
It makes it a lot easier to let shit go instead of assuming the other person is fucking with you intentionally. Which ironically is another thing baked into our instincts. It's safer to think someone you don't know is a threat and is acting maliciously. Now a days it's maladapted into road rage shootings because someone forgot to signal for a merge.
not to mention he's a psycho himself. instead of using his seemingly infinite wealth to engage in any real systemic change, he puts on a fucking bat costume and prances at night to beat the shit out of low level goons while letting the biggest maniacs and the ones leading these gangs run away every time.
Yeah but he never actually went after the original murder if you notice. He spent his entire time going after lunatics who thought that they were going to take over the city because they had planted a bomb on a bridge or something.
And that "vengeance" is what taught him that vengeance is dumb, and it's better to fight to better the world around him than go after people Punisher style.
instead of using his seemingly infinite wealth to engage in any real systemic change
Do we know this? I don't follow the comics at all but do they ever go into the things Bruce Wayne does as CEO of Wayne Enterprises? I can't fathom we have gone decades without someone touching on this.
i don't follow the comics but things that are established that i know of are:
Bruce Wayne is insanely wealthy
Uses his wealth for his bat-themed middle age crisis (bat sports car, bat private jet, bat motorcycle, bat gondola probably)
Other than that the best thing he does for other people is "philanthropy" (in the real world this is a scam by the wealthy) unless you count taking in his young lover sidekick
The police and the politicians are extremely corrupt and are for sale.
Now from all this i gather it would be very easy for Bruce to get actual political power in Gotham to make real change but he doesn't do it because running around in a furry costume is more fun.
Even apart from that, sneaking around in a costume talking about how you're the night or the knight or whatever is on its own very cringe and psychotic.
instead of using his seemingly infinite wealth to engage in any real systemic change, he puts on a fucking bat costume and prances at night to beat the shit out of low level goons
Some of the better Batman comics introduce him as skilled detective, rather than a superhero whose power is infinite money.
Like any good crime thriller, his work starts with some innocuous crime or tragedy that gets swiftly covered up by corrupt police. Batman steps in as a noir vigilante, listening to the witnesses everyone else ignored and tracing the crime back to the low-level thugs who serve as pawns in a much bigger game. He extorts them for information in order to move on to bigger fish - the crime boss who runs the docks or the sleazy businessman who thought he could pay to make a problem go away - and uncovers a deeper systematic corruption. He runs into various freaks and geeks - your two-faced DA or your web-fingered club owner - who facilitate the city-spanning crime. And, in the climax, he discovers the whole system is rotten, even to the point where his own Wayne Enterprises is complicit in these cruelties.
He discovers the limits of vigilantism, its not just a question of biting into a few bad apples, but tearing the rotten tree out of the earth root-and-branch. And he realizes its too much for one man to change. So he goes back to that first original witness/victim, and he brings him back to his cave. And he sets himself to training this survivor of a broken system how to fight crime like he does.
The best Batman stories aren't the ones where he punches a Clown Prince out of a factory window. Its ones in which he pulls another scared child out of the wreckage of his parents' home and gives him a second chance at life.
I don’t mean to direct this at only you, but I hate this take. There are plenty of comics that dive into this, him using his wealth to help Gotham, the city just had too many problems. Court of Owls for instance, the group that is always watching Gotham and influencing it state and its key figures.
We are talking about the world’s oldest profession here. Prostitution far predates the invention of currency, as transactional sex goes farther back than recorded history.
Currency is not needed for prostitution. All that is required is payment, in any form. This occurs during transaction, which constitutes trade.
I don’t think making prostitution more difficult by requiring barter solves anything at all.
I assumed OP was talking about a post-scarcity economy, not one based on barter. I didn't think anyone wants to go back to a barter system considering the overwhelming popularity of currency everywhere it has been used.
Even in post scarcity, bartering would resume and the stigma would persist. Either way, how the transaction unfolds in not where wrist-wringers get caught up
That’s not prostitution because the gift was not for the sex, but instead not to be cannibalized. It’s very clearly a case of “extortion under the threat of cannibalization!” 🤓
Because salad is boring and fat-shaming is the last kind of bullying still considered acceptable.
I was out on my bike the other day and someone yelled "YOU FAT BASTARD". Fortunately I'm pretty thick skinned and have lined up a few choice remarks for next time.
Imagine if fat had been replaced with black, or Chinese, or gay, etc. They'd be in jail for committing a hate crime quicker than I could get to the nearest Greggs.
It really depends on the culture of the area, but yeah overall it'd probably be less stigmatized on average. It would certainly be stigmatized though—some people forget that many people consider sexual acts in general (that others can see, like posting pictures on the Internet, porn work, etc.) wrong in the first place. A lot of people online don't interact with these people a lot—not necessarily because they 'don't touch grass' but because these are often the people who chose not to be active in social media. When you consider that they see a woman posting a steamy picture of herself online as wrong, it makes sense why.
Many people have grown up with a very conservative (sexuality wise, at least) mindset, and that's just the way they were taught to see things.
I think that because of that, it's not unlikely that a large portion of people would still see person doing these things, even if not for monetary gain, as "sluts" or something similar.
Yeah I was thinking about this in regards to superhero relevance.
A relevant Spider-Man story today would be one in which Spider-Man is saving people from the NYPD. Webbing up cops doing stop and frisk, terrorizing a racist cop, fucking with the mayor who shut down libraries on Sundays.
People who have sex with people just because they enjoy it already exist. It's not new and it won't meaningfully increase just because a society becomes currencyless.
Without an economic incentive, sex workers will stop existing entirely. It won't be work, and they won't have any need to do it. They won't be compelled to have sex with you just because you have money now. There will still be people at a bar, club, or whatever who will have sex with someone they like for little or no reason, but again, that's not new.
Maybe you're right, but I also think that depends on the idea that other aspects of sex work beyond just sex for money wouldn't be fulfilling to anyone without incentive. Creating pornography, for instance. Maybe that's true in an "all work is degrading" type of way. Maybe it's just semantics around the word "work".
Big doubt. Sex work was stigmatized back when there was only bartering. The stigma isn’t about the money at all. It’s about the nerve of someone to use their body to get by. Until people stop caring what other people do with their body, this issue will remain.
This is absolutely true, I just think that it would be less stigmatized. I don't think it's possible to completely eradicate the stigma, it's just too difficult to compartmentalize these things for some.
I don’t think changing the mode of payment would curb any stigma. The stigma isn’t about the transaction, it’s about autonomy and the only path to removing stigma is normalizing that autonomy. And protecting it.
You're looking at this as an economics issue. But I think it's a fundamentally a biological or evolutionary artifact. Evolutionary biology has intraspecific competition for access to mates to mating opportunities as a driver for change.
Organisms work to prevent the resource from being exploited just like water, habitats, space, etc. It's other women that would lose if access to mating opportunities are tied with monetary transactions, and a few would benefit. Minimizing prostitution helps the female of the species be more selective about their mates, and increases the "value" of their interactions.
Showerthoughts
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).