merc

Cool stuff, I live in a city. Not a huge city, but big enough that I only see the major stars at night. It would probably take me at least 45 minutes of driving to get somewhere dark enough to take a picture like yours (assuming I had all the equipment and skill to take that kind of picture at all).

Wow, you're like some kind of cultist. Any criticism that might apply to democrats and you come out swinging.

My premise is that we don't know what ethics violations have been suppressed by either party. We know that both Republicans and Democrats have been found to have violated ethics, but we don't know whether it's the majority that have been exposed or if it's just the tip of the iceberg. If it turns out that the Democrats have never suppressed an ethics violation then maybe they do live up to your mental image of them and are pure as the driven snow. But, it's also possible that the democrats have protected some members.

That doesn't mean that Republicans are better than Democrats or something, it just means that politics is politics and sometimes people in power get away with things. But really dude, you should cut back on the hero worship. These are just politicians, they shouldn't be your whole identity.

We know of some democratic lawmakers who have been held accountable, and a very small number of republicans. But, really we don't know whether what we're seeing is the norm, or if it's just a tiny fraction being held accountable. It's possible that there are more democrats that are committing unethical acts, but that they're better at hiding it and/or have more complicity in covering it up. But, I think most sane people would say that everybody's ethics violations should be public information. Even if it means hundreds of congresspeople losing their jobs and massive uncertainty in who will hold power. Ethics violations should be something voters get to know about.

I'm sure you know other people spending thousands on their gear. Anyhow, many of these hobbies can be done relatively cheaply, but I imagine the woman picturing the man doing it as someone who wasn't going the ultra-cheap route.

Nice picture btw. How far do you have to travel to get somewhere where there's a low enough level of light pollution that you can take a picture like that?

Even if the democrats weren't actually holding their members accountable, it should be done. So what if dozens of politicians, both R and D get expelled as a result. Nobody should be upset that people who had bad ethics reports get expelled.

If you did it in the olde fashioneded way with a manual hammer, manually stoking the forge with a bellows, etc., then sure. But AFAIK modern blacksmithing is pretty similar to modern carpentry or welding or any other hobby where the machines do most of the work. It's still a somewhat active hobby, compared to doing something with a computer. But, I don't think a modern blacksmith is going to get huge arms from doing it.

A leather shop as in fetish gear, or a leather shop as in a place for leatherworking hobbyists?

Does listening to something count as reading? Hmm... I'm going to have to go with a no here.

A lot of these hobbies are wealth-adjacent.

Playing an instrument: a good instrument isn't cheap, and music lessons can be pretty expensive.

Woodworking requires a lot of fairly expensive tools, and a space to do it. You can't really have woodworking as a hobby if you live in a small studio apartment. You basically need a house, either one with a basement, a shed or a garage.

Gardening: requires a garden, something you're unlikely to have unless you have your own house.

Photography: I don't know anybody who is into photography who hasn't sunk a lot of money into the hobby. There's the cameras, the lenses, and even the software these days.

Astronomy: see above.

Hiking: not expensive on its own, but in North America it means being able to drive to a wilderness spot outside the city, so you pretty much require your own car.

Archery and blacksmithing: again, requires a specialized space

Now, I know that there are cheap options for a lot of these. A musician could be someone drumming on an upside-down pail. Someone who only has access to a hotplate could still experiment with food. Woodworking could be just whittling sticks found in the park. Gardening could just be tending to a small houseplant. But, are these the version of the hobbies the women are picturing when they're imagining a potential mate doing the activity? Probably not.

Meanwhile, a lot of the stuff at the bottom of the list are very cheap hobbies. Like being influenced by the "Manosphere" just requires access to social media, same with porn and "arguing online".

Honestly, it looks to me like if you sorted the list by "dollars per hour someone invested in that hobby is likely to spend" you'd get many of the same things at the top and many of the same ones at the bottom. Some of the few exceptions are writing and reading, which can be pretty cheap hobbies, but are still apparently very attractive.

Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson. Basically online misogyny. People who blame women for everything, or think that there's such a thing as an "alpha" man, or who use the word "cuck". Basically incels, supposed "men's rights activists", date rapists and date rapists in training, etc.

There are plenty of people who go out for a drink after work. I don't think they'd describe it as a hobby though, and if they did they probably wouldn't just call it "Drinking".

I like that Debating is rated at 30.?% but there's a separate category for "Arguing Online".

I guess that being a Master Debater who comments on people's posts "Debate Me Bro!" doesn't count for the slightly more preferred category?