Human beings are social animals. The only way that other people wouldn’t be able to hurt me non-physically is if I were to cut myself off from my humanity.
It’s actually pretty simple (but not easy at all)… You start actually believing that other people can’t hurt you. That is pretty much all there is to it. (Not quite, will explain later).
You simply don’t give that power to people. I love my spouse. But my spouse cheats on me. Now I could be hurt by the betrayal… But why? What is the benefit for me? I don’t need to feel hurt to know that my spouse is not worth keeping around, to be my spouse anymore.
If other people do something bad to me, that is not on me, it’s their problem. They’re evil/unaware/selfish. It’s no reflection on the quality of person I am. Thus when someone does something bad to me, it’s honestly just good to know. I can decide how bad I think it is and react accordingly. But feeling hurt by it is not really required in that process.
As I said at the beginning, “not quite”, there are a whole bunch of other beliefs attached to/required by this. For example, I believe that everything is temporary, or at least that the chance of something permanent (really, temporary until end of life) being low. I don’t expect to be together with my spouse to the end of time - if it happens though, I have nothing against it. I believe that change is fine, and I look forward to it: If my spouse cheats on me, I can experience no partner for a while or forever, or experience looking for a new one, both things are fine with me. And so on. Basically all my beliefs are set up in a way that I’m fine with whatever happens.
(The only exception is extreme, or lasting physical harm and death. I can’t experience anything “normally” anymore when these happen to me. Some disabilities could be fine, but I probably have a limit of how much I could be affected. Losing all movement in all my limbs could be fine, but I’m not sure. Losing an arm or a leg or hearing or similar severeness I could probably be fine with.)
Now the thing is, changing your entire belief system to be fine with pretty much anything is not something people are either willing or able to do. I did it though and think that theoretically everyone can do it.
What do you mean, like insults or if someone really insults you with a phobic term?
Unless you annoy or anger the person first, then sure I’d get it if they were big an asshole. But if it’s a retort, then maybe don’t start insult wars you can’t win.
or the one I got a temp ban at the other place for “promoting violence”: if there’s a threat to your wellbeing and you have to protect your dog, you chose the wrong dog and any harm that comes to you is your own fault.
You can have your anxiety dog, but I feel safer with my security guard dog. You’re dead because you’re dumb.
Breakfast tacos at home are better than breakfast tacos out. This is true of many foods because you choose each ingredient (type, brand, …) that you prefer and prepare it in your preferred way (more done, less oil, …).
Climate change is making turbulence worse.
Straws are mostly unnecessary, so metal washable straws are dumb.
Plastic bag bans are dumb because they sell boxes of plastic bags.
Any breakfast at home is almost always better than breakfast out, if you’ve got the time and ingredients. I can, with the right ingredients and tools and while half asleep, hungover, or still drunk, make a full breakfast for a family of four better than 90% of the breakfasts I’ve ever had out. Sure it took some practice, but breakfast isn’t rocket science or usually particularly complex recipe wise.
The only thing I haven’t been able to do better at home breakfast wise so far is making my own fresh bagels or donuts. I don’t like making poached eggs either, and hollandaise sauce is a pain in the ass, but I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve gotten an eggs Benedict out at a restaurant that didn’t make me immediately regret my choice. Same with biscuits and gravy (why do restaurants think that gravy comes out of a box and should be bright white?) , bacon (just bacon flavored bacon please), eggs (sunny side up does not mean I want the whites to be clear and runny too), etc. All things I really like, but can’t tolerate having someone else fuck up and charge me for it.
As far as straws go, I agree that for most people in most situations they’re unnecessary for most soft drinks. I do, however, think they’re a pretty important part of the experience with some cocktails though, it has some effect on how fast you drink it, how it hits your tongue and you experience the flavors, if the drink is layered it effects how those different layers mix, what order you get them in and how the drink evolves as you drink it.
That said, I think most reusable straws make for a bad substitute in a lot of cases because they’re too thick compared to the coffee stirrer type straws I usually tend to get in bars when I order a cocktail that calls for a straw. Thinner straws would probably be kind of a pain to clean though.
I’m not a huge fan of metal straws, they’re just too hard and kind of unnerving if they crack against your teeth.
I have some bamboo straws I like, and they fit my vibe since I make a lot of tiki drinks at home.
I can agree with that. If i get a fancy tiki drink i expect a straw, but most other times I’m ok drinking from a cup, especially if I’m sitting down. A year or two ago Starbucks switched to the drinky lids. Why haven’t other fast foods done that? I get a drink about twice per week and i do feel guilty about the trash. I usually save my cup and refill it for a couple of days.
You can walk into the store that has a bag ban and buy a box of bags. Then you use those bags to pick up dog poop or line your trash cans or whatever other things you used to do with the previously free store bags that are now banned or charged for. It’s not about banning the bags to save the environment. It’s about the store getting getting paid for the bag, either as a bag fee or in a box.
If you are optimistic for others you ancourage them to do stuf. Doing some stuff that may not work is 100000% better than watching Netflix/TV. Especially in current nihilistic social climate.
Pessimist and optimist are both right (not my quote)
Example: Pessimist: I will not get this job -> So I will not even apply -> 0% chance of getting a job -> 100% correct Optimist: I will get this job -> I apply and prepare -> 20% chance of getting this job -> 20% correct But who cares if you are correct. What matters is taking a chance. This comes way more useful if you are optimistic every day. So you apply for a job whenever there is a chance. And if you apply for 10 jobs from initial 20% you get 89% chance to get a good job.
I can tell you that overly optimistic people annoy me to no end, and even tend to have the complete opposite effect on me. Cheerleading, thoughts and prayers BS, rather than acknowledging the suckage that’s happening so we can act on it, doesn’t help me at all.
Debatable
One can perfectly be realistic about its chances at an interview/job and apply and perform well at it and get it regardless…
You seem to be equating realism with pessimism and immobilism, while equating optimism and action. Why?
Optimistic person. And if saying “this idea might just work” encourages people you love to try things, then it also helps people you love.
We could debate on what “overly” means. If you believe you will win the lottery this is just stupid and naive, but if you believe you can start a profitable restaurant this is not overly optimistic. Still you must not be stupid when trying.
This is debatable. This statement is very broad.
Correct if you are realistic and not pessimistic. My hot take should be formed: “People who claim are realists are most often just pessimists, who will pass all ideas as bad”. Actually to continue from here we should exactly define all the words we are using. And in this case it would not be a hot take anymore. Also I believe to decide to try and take interview you must feel optimistic about it instead of pessimistic.
My hot take is targeting “realists” who say: “Your idea is bad. Do not pursue it. I am just being realistic.” Even though their idea has maybe small but fair chance of succeeding. This is just discouragement - which is more often seen in pessimists.
Actually at this point I do not even know enough about words and definitions to continue.
I think we should actively try to encourage each other to act, also by believing in others ideas (still do not believe in winning the lottery).
You’re not responsible for their self development. This is a morale thing.
Trust me it’s easier to pick yourself up for the whole team than it is for just yourself.
Maybe next time you ride the bus, imagine that you’re a background character in someone else’s struggle, and how you hold yourself will be absorbed by their subconscious. Maybe just by holding yourself the right way, you can make everyone on the bus just slightly more ready for the day.
I grew up in a culture where people spoke vulgarly and it was fucking fine. Just piss off with your thin skin and let the rest of us talk. Go nuzzle up to whatever sweetness you need from speech on your own, and let the rest of us be.
There’s nothing wrong with vulgarity. They were more talking about the tact with which the person was sharing their idea. There’s a difference, dickhead fuckface fart muncher
They’re not addressing anything. They’re telling the person to shut up.
I have no problem with what this person said. I found what they said valuable. I don’t think anyone should be going around telling others they can’t speak because they don’t match some standard the policer thinks should apply to speech.
If you let your cat outside in the Americas (or anywhere cats haven’t lived for thousands of years) unsupervised I’m going to assume one of the following is true: you don’t care if your cat dies, and/or you don’t care about wildlife. Even if you live in a place with zero predators, why the hell are you trusting a CAT with road safety?
Saying this as someone who grew up with parents that let our cats live (and die, a lot) that way. And as someone who has seen two friends lose cats to coyotes in the past year. And also interrupted an attack on someone’s pet by a coyote. It’s been a bad fucking year here for coyotes.
The new suburbs where I am are cat containment areas so that’s something. But I’m in an older suburb. Where all the wildlife is quite established. And I keep finding lizards and parrots ripped apart. My home cameras pick up the cats that visit all night.
Plus, my (indoor) cat can’t help but have a loud, boisterous conversation with any cat that wanders through my yard. Usually at 2am while I’m trying to sleep.
My cats were born an outdoor cat and I’d rather they touched some grass and lived an actual life rather than be stuck inside all day even if they die earlier. I’m sure they would too.
Wildlife argument is valid though. They kill some good (rats, mice), but I can’t justify them killing birds and lizards.
That Amerikans don’t deserve any special consideration, and in fact, deserve a Century of Humiliation where the odious “please collaborate in our genocide so the cryptofascist oligarchy Democracy™ that anglo-saxon, protestant-descended magnates and a small fraction of uplifted misleaders we All™ enjoy will be saved!” brainworm is concerned.
Yes. My principles do matter to me more than you do at this point if you’re going to look me in the face and tell me I have to support a genocider, all so you (or whatever minority you’re about to only care about long enough to use as a cudgel) can remain comfortable.
I suspect your definition of genocide differs from the legal one, because the US hasn't supported a genocide since we did native Americans dirty. The term had not yet been coined then.
Even if the international courts don’t rule that Israel is committing genocide, that will necessarily have been influenced by the United States’s close ties to Israel, so that they haven’t yet said whether it is or isn’t genocide is irrelevant. According to the evidence we have, it is.
Others, like historian Gary Anderson, contend that genocide does not accurately characterize any aspect of American history, suggesting instead that ethnic cleansing is a more appropriate term.
I’ve seen that same statement by people opposed to the use of the word “genocide” when talking about Israel’s genocide of Palestine, and it’s just as credible there as when “historian Gary Anderson” said it. At best, such a stance is pedantic; at worst, it supports Israel’s genocide by denying and enabling it.
Everything you’ve ever done was for your own purpose. Everything we do, we do it cause it makes or will make US happy. Even if a person is kind to others, they are because it makes THEM happy. Even ascetics do what they do, because in their mind it will grand THEM happiness in the future.
So realize that you and everyone around you do what they do, because it makes THEM happy and live you life so it will make YOU happy
Nah, being happy that others are happy isn’t egotism, it’s being a functional social creature. Making a charitable decision at your own expense is a good thing, and feeling good about the decision or being congratulated by someone else does not negate that.
I guess, but this just kind of redefines how most people think of egoism/selfishness/altruism etc. Where does it lead? If making people happy is selfish, and making people happy is ‘good’, does that mean any selfish act is ‘good’? Does it really take away from ‘good’ acts if the performer derives happiness from them?
The vast majority of people whining about the current political landscape have done absolutely nothing IRL to remedy this (tangibly supporting good candidates, running for office themselves, etc.)
Parents’ jobs aren’t to protect their kids. It’s to make sure that their kids are sufficiently prepared for the world when the kids grow up.
There seems to be this rising trend of parents being overprotective of their children, even to the point of having parental controls enabled for children even as old as the late teens. My impression has always been that these children are too sheltered for their age.
I grew up in the “age of internet anarchism,” where goatse was just considered a harmless prank to share with your friends and liveleaks was openly shared. Probably not the best way of growing up, to be fair, but I think we’ve swung so hard into the opposite direction that a lot of these children, I feel, are living in their own little bubbles.
To some degree, it honestly makes sense to me why the younger generation nowadays is so willing to post their lives on the internet. When that’s the only thing you can do on the internet, that’s what you’ll do
I have recently learned that the new helicopter parent type is the snowplow parent - these are the ones that not only shield their kids from the world, but also fully manage their lives for them. I work for the University of California and seeing how absolutely helpless these kids are is scary.
I’m in the UC system as well. It’s both concerning and amusing how much college students nowadays go to their parents for permission on minor things. I get it, to some degree. Respect for your parents and all that. But some degree of autonomy would be helpful at that age
If you’ve spent any amount of time among people who went to / are in college in their early 20s, and people who were working in their late teens and early twenties, it becomes clear that college arranges for the students to have a managed-for-them life to a degree that I actually think is severely harmful to them. It’s basically a big day care. Education is fuckin fantastic, I’m not saying it’s not, but the nature of the way your life is organized within it to me I think is very bad for people.
Like yes you know integrals, very good, but e.g. I spoke to a guy who had not paid his phone bill for months, who somehow still had phone service but was genuinely very confused about how the bills he was getting now could have gotten as high as they were. No matter how many times I tried to explain to him, I couldn’t get it across. I finally just gave up the endeavor.
Part of the issue with the value of college isn’t that it educated, but that it acted like an ordeal to overcome and filtered out people who didn’t have the makings of being a leader. Not all of that is due to educational ability.
I get you don’t mean this so broadly but you lose all nuance with this statement.
Protect them from every minor mistake or risk that could ever possibly happen, and smothering them? Sure.
Someone about to stab your kid? Protect them from predators? Protect them from various risks and hazards in life which every parent should be teaching them?
I’m pretty autistic, so you’re not allowed to write this off as “people using magic communication I can’t understand because I’m smart” or whatever your model of the current situation is.
When a person says it is not a parent’s job to protect their kids, you already know what it means. It’s right there in your three bullet point.
dont get into strangers cars
dont let strangers into the house
look both ways when crossing the road
If a parent’s job were protecting their kids, these would read:
Don’t let your kids near roads or cars
Don’t give your kids control over the door
Don’t let your kids cross roads
Like, if I was given care of a dog for a week while their owners went on vacation, and my job were to “protect the dog”, I wouldn’t be putting the dog in any of the situations where its own choices were the source of its safety.
Are you ready to stop pretending that you don’t see?
The first line of my reply literally says I dont think this is what you mean, BUT …. I very clearly stated I assume that isnt exactly what the commenter meant. The rest of my comment is to clarify what the poster defined as “protection”.
If someone came up to me and asked protect something, contextually yes obviously I understand that.
That isnt the situation here. The comment chain is someone with a “hot take” on what “parents protecting children” means. It being a hot take I feel it is completely valid to put aside any assumption that the commenter is talking about “well obviously I mean protect them from x y z”. Because its a potentially unpopular hot take. It’s not a common idea in society.
Unless you can read minds it is very possible this commenter meant it literally. IE how kids are raised in the film 300. “Heres a stick. go fight a wolf kid”.
Im not writing it off. I assumed what they meant but followed up for clarification. Did you just expect replies to be “agree” or “disagree” with zero further discussion?
I thought you’d be talking about letting kids climb up high into trees, going into the city on their own, let them hang out at the skatepark without supervision, stuff like that.
But no, it’s about computers and kids not being able to see goatse. Lol. That’s lemmy i guess.
On the other hand I owe my career in IT to learning how to bypass the parental controls my parents set up and cover my tracks. That got me started in computers really early.