I give up. You’re just saying things for the sake of saying them. Literally none of that supports your hypothesis that it’s a personal failing that can be cured by getting hobbies.

• The complaint about relationships being casual and not progressing is a major complaint found in other studies. It is, in fact, possible to go on dates and get laid without obtaining the benefits of a committed relationship.
• Again, the political split by gender is obvious. But you’re dismissing how wide the rift is and why it’s happening, just chalking it up to a personal failing.
• What are the factors that are making it hard to approach? Why is that felt so broadly? This goes back to the flaw in your argument, stating the end goal as the solution.
• The harassment concern is the flip side of the approach problem. There’s no evidence that dating is actually more dangerous than before, so why is there this chilling effect? How is that a problem that can be fixed by individual effort?
• Dating apps have an overwhelming negative perception for actually landing a serious relationship. A majority of users reported using them without being open to long term commitment. See bullet 1.

You really sound like someone who hasn’t dated recently or knows any young people in the dating pool. Of the people I know, the research fits their complaints to the letter. They do work harder on self improvement than older generations ever did (mental health, physical health, public image on social media, etc…) with no results. Saying just go meet people is condescending, like a boomer telling people to get jobs by handing out printed resumes.

I don’t know what to say because you’re just talking past any logical argument…

“We can’t meet potential partners”

“JUST MEET WOMEM”

I am saying there isn’t a widespread problem

Uhhhh… OK? You can say that but it doesn’t make it true, all trends are pointing away from serious romantic experiences. Nearly 80% of baby boomers experienced a romantic relationships in their teenage years compared to 56% of Gen Z adults. In 2021, 54% of people ages 18-34 reported not having a steady partner compared to 33% in 2004.

women would also be affected

They are? Women and men report dating is harder than it was before. Less singles overall are dating. Women have more fear for their physical/emotional saftey in the modern pseudo-anonymous dating pool.

A big reason it’s framed as a male loneliness problem is the significant skew for women to be in committed relationships with older men, leaving younger men with an even larger singles cohort (32% of single women are ages 18-29 vs 51% of single men).

It’s not that hard to do the research and have an informed opinion. Just writing everything off as an echo chamber effect doesn’t work when there’s measurable events in the real world. Unless you have actual evidence that it’s a problem with their collective dating efforts then there’s no argument to be made. It’s not even based on anecdotal evidence, you’re just saying you think all these commenters haven’t tried your advice.

when you have a problem you should try and improve yourself to address the problem vs blame society

Right, so just a “bootstrap yourself” argument rather than looking at the flaws in our society.

what about that is any different than 25 years ago

You tell me, because there’s clearly a problem! Your answer is that millions of people collectively decided to become unwashed, lonely losers overnight? That none of them have even attempted of joining a baking class or meeting people at the park?

The time and energy investment to get those hours is not linear. Going from 0 hours to 1 hour is (by definition) a massive change. You’re describing the solution as if there’s an accessible way to make meaningful connections in the digital era. If it were as simple as described, we wouldn’t have this societal problem because humans really don’t like being lonely.

…a difference between pretending to be interested in something to get laid and trying to find ways to do things you find interesting with other people

What’s the difference? Your advice never said the hobby needs to interest you. This whole conversation is about finding companionship and intimacy, not group hobbies.

Also, all of this argument puts aside that diving into new group activities is time and resource intensive. Having the time, flexibility and money to switch between them just to meet a few new people is an incredible privilege. It also inherently assumes you have access to these groups. Guess if you live in a social desert or don’t have reliable transportation you’re SOL and a loser for life?

The problem with “just get hobbies to meet women” is it’s glaringly obvious when people are there to do that. You can’t force yourself to enjoy an activity; you’ll naturally do what you want, which is approach women.

I have never met a person who is even moderately social that has a hobby where they interact with people of the opposite sex, and has platonic female friends…

Kind of a pointless truism. Dating is a numbers game, more encounters is more success. You even admit it could take this prospect up to a year of effort, now imagine that you have to build that opportunity network from scratch.

You don’t nose dive your country and lock up/deport dissenters over chump change, you’re losing more in stability and face (and the more lucrative bribes that come with those) than its worth. Trump’s irrational instability has dropped the dollar value more than any of these donations could cover. The math doesn’t add up.

The payment you’re describing is a tithe; a show of gratitude and servitude. You wouldn’t say a feudal vassal has power over his lord just because the material exchange only goes one way.

I really don’t understand where this idea comes from of a country with the 40th rank GDP having the pull to mastermind politics worldwide. For reference: their revenue is about the same as Apple, whose lobbying sees less success despite being more politically neutral.

The reason they have international support is because it’s convenient and their location + antagonism align with the geopolitics of a large group of states. Isreal is a dog on a leash, what we’re seeing Trump do is give them unprecedented lead to genocide at will.

Letting them go this far and long without tugging their collar back to peace talks is not the historical norm, no matter how hard you point at Biden. Did Biden take direct military action to support them? Has any US president?

This Isreali lobbying is a boogeyman; Isreal could dissolve tomorrow and you would see another antagonist spring up in the region with international backing. People are just uncomfortable with their country being aligned with the bad guys of their own free will.

If you’re going as far as throwing out monetary economics, cheap doesn’t mean anything. You’re just describing equitable transportation access.

Even in that scenario, it’s not desirable to have that reliance on a foreign state for such a core function. Power dynamics aside, global supply chains are brittle (as seen during covid).

Don’t really care about the competition. I care about having cheap access to [X]. If the competition can’t compete, then fuck em. That’s not my problem.

This comment is the American consumer for the last 50 years, next step is complaining about outsourcing jobs and lower quality products with no competition.

The best of both worlds is the tree style tabs plug in. Though I do wish it was a core feature so I could get tab grouping and hide the top tab bar.