No yeah I’m doing actual cognitive therapy, not “therapy” as in finding myself as a late teen early 20’s with my first trips.

I don’t care about people being spiritual, but when they claim their spirituality is superior to actual objective medical science, without being able to reason how or why, then they’re just being religious.

“They’re doing forestry, all of them in Helsinki!”

What are “implications”?

If only the snow had thawed, the Finns would’ve lost

Doesn’t even realise continuation war went on for several years.

Like literally you’re living in a fantasy that’s clearly been programmed into your brain. Has very little to do with reality.

You can see that from reading the comments you’ve left.

You’re arguing the Grand Duchy of Finland was more urbanised than Russia, which has a city of millions of people literally a few hours away from most Finns. We still don’t even have a city with a million people. You’re trying to pretend that Finland was really “urbanised” when there still even isn’t a large city, to be frank. Even the way a city is defined is different in different places.

The capital area is starting to resemble an urban area. You just keep living in your Soviet propaganda fantasies, I don’t really mind

Look at the population density.

Fkin delulu

The point I’m trying to make is that Russia on the eve of the revolution was less urbanized and industrialized then Finland.

Yeah and you have zero sources for that. Everything points the other way.

The article also says that Finland was (and is) an agrarian society. You’re just trying to defend USSR losses, clearly.

“Noo noo USSR had it worse and less industry and Finns were all in cities, doing forestry.”

Fucking insane man stop the brain rot propaganda

Edit also Hanko military base wasn’t achieved in WWII. The Ruskis had it for like two years. Like I said, the invasion into Russia was successful. But you already forgot about your “if the snow had thawed Ruskis would’ve taken all of Finland”-bit?

At the time of the revolution finland was more urbanized then the rest of Russia, the population was more concentrated in Helsinki, like you said involved in paper milling

Are you fucking high?

Do you know where paper comes from? What Finland is covered by? What stopped the Ruskis? Forest.

By what inane and/or insane logic do you think that forestry is an urban activity? :DDD

In 1939, Leningrad had 3.1 million people. The entirety of Finland had 3.7 million people. Helsinki had ~250k people.

Most of Finland was just rural. You’re spouting complete fantasy.

Hell, I’m from one of the largest cities in Finland and a vast majority of it is still considered very much rural, there’s only like a square kilometer or so in the centre that’s actually city city.

Zero facts, utter nonsense. The only thing we have is large docks, because we needed large docks for the export for the forest industry. That’s why we build the largest cruise ships in the world (fact).

But you’d be very silly indeed to think that only logging was done on-site, instead of actually making the paper mills and cellulose factories where the logging happens to save driving through half the country.

Most of the country is still empty. Not as empty as Russia, because we just don’t have the space, but it’s not far. Russia is the largest country in the world with vaaaast empty spaces. Finland is quite small. Yet we still only have double the population density. (For comparison the US has almost 10x that, Germany 25x, UK ~29x).

We also had double the population density in 1939.

According to this site

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/rus/russia/urban-population

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/fin/finland/urban-population

The urbanisation for both countries in 1960 was very similar at ~55%. However Russia urbanised quicker and then baselined, whereas Finland grew slowly. Ofc that doesn’t tell us much of the 40s but they didn’t have the data and I was loathe to waste time

So yeah, what goals did Russia achieve, if we put away the land claims. Which by the way wasn’t in any way comparable to the splitting of the Koreas. Finland didn’t split in half.

By the end of WWII, Finland lost roughly 12% of our pre-war territory. Korea literally split in half, 48% to 52%. Not comparable. There isn’t an active Finnic population on the Russian side claiming to be the “real Finland”. We lost 0% of our national unity.

My grandma was a refugee thanks to Russkis. She’s still my grandma, spoke Finnish, lived in Finland and I’m Finnish as well. I don’t think the same thing happened in Korea.

So what “initial aims” did the USSR achieve? Their initial aim at invading Finland was to take a tenth of it?

Russia was operating on planned economies, which just don’t function yet. Perhaps in the 24th century, but not yet. For instance they didn’t want to label products like screws, so that people and factories are equal. But that also meant no culpability for the factories or workers for shoddy quality. Which very soon led to them having to actually label the products, ie sort of branding them. Ofc “factory 141 of the worker’s paradise” or smth isn’t exactly unique branding, but to anyone who’s been in the military, numbers can be as much branded as the Coke Santa. For instance a lot of people will know the 101st Airborne Division. That’s just a number.

So despite their ideals with the planed economy, the USSR actually ended up doing a lot of market economy things, because they’re not in market economies “just because” but because they have functionality. Capitalism might take those things too far and pervert them, but Soviet communism didn’t see any value in any of them and failed.

Anyway, eagerly waiting your response on how forestry is an urban activity lololol

I’ve had a therapist for >3 years.

I think MDMA is far superior.

(I would enjoy combining the two, but the law doesn’t allow that yet so.)

((Also it’s been almost 10 years since I took ecstasy, so it’s not like I’m an addict or anything.))

(((In fact, some serotonergic drugs actually have anti-addictive properties, believe it or not.)))

A 10 to 1 advantage in manpower won’t matter if that 1 guy is in a tank and the 10 guys don’t even have a gun.

You’ve never heard of the Winter War, I see.

Russia had a massive war industry in comparison to Finland, where it was literally non-existent.

Even then it shows the lopsided Soviet industrial capacity with how many tanks and planes they had.

Finland had a couple of WWI tanks. And I mean just a couple. When the USSR attacked, we had already placed an order for new tanks from the Brits (Vickers 6 ton tanks) but the first ones were delivered in 1938 and the deliveries weren’t complete when the Ruskis attacked.

So they literally had more manpower and more war industry, especially armored vehicles. Tanks.

They were wasted on a war in terrain that would’ve been difficult without snow, and even more so with.

We found the Russian tanks actually really useful and they helped us keep Vanja at bay. So it wasn’t the terrain, it was user error.

Yeah the soviets weren’t able to fully conquer finland but they did get a lot of there demands

Please do elaborate. Yeah we lost Karjala and the NE arm. But that’s like saying the US won the Vietnam War. They most certainly didn’t. Perhaps people won’t say Vietnam or Finland straight up won, but both show just how much determination matters.

Because in both cases the invading force had a lot of people from thousands of kilometres away who had never even seen the land they were invading.

So what do you base this “Finland was much more industrialised” bit? Because we really weren’t much of a country until Nokia. Really the only thing Finland made was what you wiped your arse on. As in we had a well growing forest industry, and still do. But other than that, we weren’t highly industrialised in the 20th century. That only came in like the 70’s.

You know people were on rations right? Like my grandma went on and on about rationing. And my dad still had a booze card, although that wasn’t just for rationing because of lack of resources (the Bratt system is what I advocate in unison with legalising drugs).

and the snow thawed then finland probably wouldn’t have been able to hold them off for much longer in conventional war

As if motitus in the woods would be any different with snow or not. We’re good at using the forests, no matter the time of the year. You know there was another war, right? The Continuation War which lasted from 1941 to 1944. Where we actually advanced into Russia. As in, we invaded Russia.

That wasn’t a guerrilla campaign. It was an open invasion. And a successful one.

It started in June and by September we’d gained all the previously lost ground. It doesn’t snow in September.

Seems like you’re a bit sore about Ruskis sucking so hard?

In the Winter War Finns lost 20-30 tanks. Russia lost SEVERAL THOUSAND.

But yeah, Ruskis would’ve deffo had Finland if the snow had only thawed ;>>>>>

A better comparison would be a country like Mexico

A better comparison would be Finland, which was literally a part of Russia.

We kept market economy. Russia didn’t.

Capitalism sucks, but so do planned economies. Socialist market economies are the thing.

Also WWII Russia won by having tons of disposable troops to toss at any enemy position. Not because their economy was magnificent.

Russia also was unable to take Finland, despite us having way worse military equipment and way less people.

We still talk about Karl Marx, even make unprompted greentexts about him, proving a social contribution

Furthermore, you actually have the time to do something other than slave away to the bourgeoisie. Sure, you might not have a lot of it in your own experience, but child labour and 16 hour days were completely normal before Marx.

Marx had the idea the surplus value the capitalists are actually profiting off of is the commodity of the worker’s putting in time. I mean, he didn’t really consider it a commodity, just pointed out how capitalism commodifies human labour.

But yeah pretty much all trade unions and socialist parties owe their existence to Marx.

“Didn’t make any contributions” such ragebait

Yeah no wörries being pedantic about it is for me, really.

I’d think EV’s would be perhaps about as easy, or easier… in theory. But in practice idk if they always have actual hydraulic brakes. I’d still think they do, even if there’s also regenerative braking.

But for electric cars maybe it would be model based basically. Hell probably at some point the steering wheel and pedals will be wireless so you can change sides when crossing from left-driving traffic to the right and back. Then kids would drive from the backseat as a dare. If we’ll even let humans drive in the future. I know automated driving is shit currently, but I was thinking of living for a while yet.

I’m thinking at some point it will probably be that you’ll need to hand over driving to a computer whilst in a city or smth. Then can only drive yourself outside city centers. That could help with traffic. I believe there’s already large semitrucks or something which can sort of link in a convoy so only the first truck’s driver controls the speed and steering and whatnot, the others are computer controlled in order to minimise braking and fuel consumption etc.

Well, step-father, to be accurate. I’ve never even lived with him, I moved out when my little sister was born or thereabouts. And I still had a dad long after that, so that’s why I don’t call him dad or father. (This paragraph was prolly more for me than for you, tbh.)

But yeah, I used to think it was expensive, and it used to be, afaik, as you had to basically either buy and old drivers-ed car or extensively modify your own vehicle.

However, someone came up/allowed it to just be a pedal on the passenger side that’s bolted on the floor and which then has a hydraulic hose going to the actual breakpedal. So all you have is a pinky-sized hose going between the seats. You can either just let it sit on the console as it doesn’t bother anything or you if you really want, take some panels away and put it through there.

Oh you can do that in Finland as well. You just need to have an extra brake pedal installed on the passenger side, for emergency braking. You also need an extra mirror, and a permit to teach. The requirements for a permit to teach are nominal, it’s just that you have at least 5 years experience with the class of vehicles you’re teaching (as you could teach a BE as well for instance, not talking about installing extra brake pedals on motorbikes lol), you’re at least 25 years of age and have a “clean driving record”. I’m not sure what disqualifies one with the record. I think it’s probably somewhat subjective. Like a DUI definitely disqualifies you, but some minor speeding prolly won’t.

It’s been increasing a lot here. Like when I learned to drive I knew of no-one in my age or near it who’d done it. But my sister is 15 years younger and when she did it my stepdad (her dad, she’s my half-sibling) taught her. It’s doubled since 2014.

And I think the driving schools have less theory and driving lessons as well, we had tons. Probably dropped it so that it’s faster for the schools to get more people in and out. Ie capitalism loosening safety regulations in the name of profit. Thanks, right-wing government of however long ago it was! ^(/s)

Well I did some checking. Lots of what Google says nowadays in the first answers is hallucination though so feel free to correct if you know better.

But “in a vast majority of states” as long as you’re over 18, all you need to do is walk into a DMV and pass a “knowledge test” and a vision test. Then you get a learner’s permit. Sure, you’re not allowed to drive solo with one, but the supervisor just needs to be an adult with a license (and “capable of driving the vehicle” ie “sober and alert” but eh drunk driving laws in the US are a whole other mess, damn Murica just give your cops breathalysers. here they sell disposable ones at every register in supermarkets).

In most states you can get that at 16 afaik.

Here in Finland, when I went to driving school, it lasted weeks. You have to sit theory lessons, risk lessons, and then do driving with an instructor for a dozen hours or so and then you get to go take a driving test and if you pass, you’ll get a license.

In the US they usually don’t even require parallel parking.

I had to parallel park in a steep hill and then hill start from there while not stalling the engine.

And after that, you get your phase 1 driving license. It gets taken away easier for fines, you can have like 2 in a year or 3 in 2 years iirc. I mean, you can’t. You can have 1 in a year or 2 in 2 years but 2 in one year or 3 in two years iirc and you get your license revoked and have to do a driving test all over again.

Then when you’ve had your phase 1 license for at least 1.5 years and have completed both night driving training and slippery driving training (you get taken to a rally track with hills and bends and it’s all covered in either water and ice or in the summer soap and oil and water) then you can have your permanent license.

So you know, by the idea that more training and higher requirements and harder to pass driving tests would mean better drivers unless there’s a maaaasssive disparity in the populations and Americans are just naturally so much better drivers that they compensate for the difference training makes. Which… they aren’t, let’s be honest.

Oh and most cars are manual. I feel like saying that a majority of Americans wouldn’t even know how to drive a manual probably isn’t a controversial statement, right? You’re allowed to go through driving school with automats but then you won’t be allowed to drive manual cars.

Also, several different classes of vehicles and licences. At 15 you get M class, for moped or “moped-cars” (fucking rich kids, pappa betalar) at 16 you can get a A1, that’s bikes up to 125cc and 11kw, then at 18 you can go for B which is regular cars, and nowadays I think only C1, but I did C. That’s heavy good vehicles, large “semitrucks”. C1 is smaller, lighter, semitrucks, they sort of split the class for some reason.

Most of the American “trucks” the insane sized pickups would probably C1 if not C.

If you want trailers then you have to also do E for them, and that’s for each (but not bikes obvs) so for instance you can have ABEC which would allow you to drive a large trailer behind a regular car, but not a massive one behind a semitruck. (You can have a small one with C, just like you can have a small regular trailer or a camper with B if their mass is low enough). But to have full semitruck+trailer you’d need CE. Then there’s also D which is buses. So you could have ABECEDE. (My dad had that I think.) A1 upgrades to a and A with “driving experience” which is just counted in years since you got the license, even if you didn’t drive for that time. So if you drive A1 license at 16 you get a-license at 18 and A at 20. Lowercase a is bikes up to 600cc and 25kw (but people often remove the limits from it being 25, but will be very costly if you get caught, for insurance).

TLDR the requirements for a driving license in the US are about the same as for a moped license here in Finland, and the requirements for a Commercial Driving License in the US are about the same as those here for a regular license.

Sooo… yeah. I think we can infer.

Also, there’s these:

https://www.wardsauto.com/news/what-europe-can-teach-america-on-road-safety-killing-by-design-part-1/798798/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0386111211000033

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12544-014-0131-7

Also I’m not sure where you got the idea that the US doesn’t have sidewalks.

I think they mean “curbs” actually. Or curbed sidewalks in general. And even if they don’t, I’ve heard from lots of Americans how simply some places aren’t walkable. As in there is literally no sidewalk, and you can’t step off the road, as there’s no “right to roam” in the US so someone could technically just shoot you for trespassing in the worst case, forcing you to practically walk on the road, which is being driven by massive and unsafe SUVs. SUV’s which wouldn’t care about most European curbs probably, having such large tires. But most average sized cars do.

I think guys really wouldn’t mind a transwoman nearly as much as a trans man would bother people in the ladies.

Although the trans woman might have a bad experience in the mens (imagine the scale of a “bad experience” yourself), I don’t think that men would be bothered. Hell, pretty often in nightclubs you get cis women using the men’s, because the line is so much longer and slower in the ladies.

Yeah a girl without makeup in a hoodie and sweaters wouldn’t really raise eyebrows as much as a guy in a dress and makeup, I would bet money on that. Perhaps not as much nowadays but I’m sure it still very much exists.

Especially if you live in rural areas instead of a large city. Probably people living in L.A. etc. can reasonably disagree with this, but in general.

“These two things I’m comparing aren’t comparable!”

Oh wow.

That level of “I was wrong” is genuinely rare to see anywhere. Mad props for changing your position and even admitting to just how wrong you were.

This may sound sarcastic, but it’s not.

You’re “one of the good ones”. (That’s slightly sarcastic, as the sentence in itself implies discrimination.)

America might not be doing well, but at least there are people like you, brave enough to go against the tide. And I believe that’s sort of a core American value. Like not a modern one, but an ideal one which someone might’ve been philosophising over once. Going against the system just isn’t a thing here to that extent. Levels of conformity, yeah, that’s what I mean. It’s much higher where I live and the values behind everything seem fucked up, and ideal American ones at least resemble French Enlightenment philosophies, even if you’ve really don’t have them in use, currently.

Oh oh oh, how like most Americans are religiously for circumcision, mostly because it would be annoying to think someone’s robbed them of sexual function by mutilating their genitals as a baby?

"We’re both reversing the polarity. There’s two of us. I’m reversing it, you’re reversing it back again; we’re confusing the polarity!