Fuck ALL advertisements. Yes, even "unobtrusive" ones, especially yours. If I want your shit, I will find you. If I appreciate your shit, I'll pay you for your time. If you want to connect, I'm all ears. Otherwise, fuck off capitalists, fuck off advertisers, and fuck off useful idiots who want to waste my finite lifespan in this miserable universe showing me ads.
... what's your content? If you're not comfortable posting it, them what type of media is it? Not to rub it in, but getting your content from you, your fans, or someone who contacts me currently is the only way I will ever get your content, as I ruthlessly block advertising in every aspect of my life.
To be clear, I'm not against self promotion. For example, if you went into a video game forum and posted links to your game, that's not advertising in my view. More importantly, I would probably actually be interested in a new video game by you if I were browsing a video game forum. Hell, if you randomly PM'ed it to me or emailed it, that would be fine too.
I make games and stuff. Let me tell you, it's pretty hard to get noticed on the internet. There comes a point where whatever you're selling will be popular enough in a closed circle that it spreads through word of mouth but before that you need to get an audience. That means some shameless advertising in social media and maybe buying some ad spaces. If you don't get that momentum whatever content you're making might be dead on arrival. A lot of people and companies making ads don't actually like annoying others with them, but it's really hard to get anyone's attention now that there's like a billion new things releasing every day.
That means some shameless advertising in social media and maybe buying some ad spaces.
I'd have no problem if you just spammed my inbox or all of my communities. I'm all for self-promotion or even just promoting stuff you like. I don't get adverts anymore, but there have been so many times where I got a negative impression of something I later found out was cool because it was advertised to me first.
I have no problem with people being annoying in my inbox or trying to promote themselves. What I do have a problem with is the constant stream of undiluted, intrusive bullshit being sold to me since the day I was born. If I saw your game in a web ad that's keeping me from the content I actually wanted to see, I would absolutely not be interested in it; if you or a fan blindly spammed it into my inbox 69 times in a row, I would definitely check it out.
Unfortunately there's a lot of products that most people don't even know exist. Hell I keep finding new tools and wondering why I've been doing things the hard way for so long.
OTOH, fuck all the advertisers who use shady tactics to make sales, and especially fuck all the people who pray on the naivety of others to steal their money. I was just showing a customer an email I got the other day stating her domain hosting was past due and required immediate payment, and she asked how I knew it was a scam. Uh, hello, because ---I--- am hosting your domain and website (and this is exactly why I share this kind of stuff with people, to make them think before they blindly write a check).
Unfortunately there's a lot of products that most people don't even know exist. Hell I keep finding new tools and wondering why I've been doing things the hard way for so long.
For sure. I'm not against promotion in the large, but the constant and intrusive advertisements within other tasks, such as web ads that take up valuable screen real estate, or TV/YouTube commercials that keep me from the programs I want to watch.
Like my username is literally PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S. I have no problem getting PM'ed or emailed stuff. For example, I'm subscribed to a number of mailing lists from sites I ordered from. Guitar Center can send me all the emails they want [1], sell me all the crap they want, because I can opt out at any time, and I have a work email so I can put them aside for later.
[1] To the specific email I gave them, which I do check.
I would argue that if there's a product that nobody knows exist that's not necessarily because we need to allow constant intrusive ads, and more indicative that people don't actually need the product.
I want to say that in any given day, 60% of the ads I see are from big, well known companies who don't need me to see them to know they exist. Shit like Liberty Mutual (I swear I see more of their ads than anyone else and THEY ARE ALREADY MY INSURANCE PROVIDER), Coke, Pepsi, etc. 39.9% of the remaining 40% are advertisements for shit that I just don't care about. I don't care about the newest tech toys. I don't care about the newest car mods, or random shit I can put on my desk, or stupid extra kitchen gadgets. Fully 40% of the ads I see are trying to convince me that I should buy a product that I straight up don't need because the ad looked cool. Why should those ads be allowed to exist? Why should I be constantly bombarded with ads for services that I either already know plenty about or for things that are trying to manufacture a reason for their existence?
Only about 0.5% of the ads I see are actually for things I did know know about and that seem useful to me, or like something I would like. Probably even less than that, I'm drunk rn and estimating.
I keep throwing away ads from Comcast trying to sell me on the virtues of their business internet packages. Guys, I left you because your lame-ass shit was expensive as hell, slow as hell, and you couldn't even be counted on to meet a single appointment in 6 months to bury your damn line you left laying across my yard.
I agree with you, there's a lot of companies that just need to be silenced. You're allowed to send me ONE ad, and you better make it good because I don't ever want to hear from you again.
You really should be directing your angst at the bastards who respond to advertising. If it weren't for them, there would be no advertising at all because it would be completely unfeasible. Nobody would be willing to pay for something that has no return on investment.
Disagree. Ad campaigns are made the way they are because marketing people are abusing how our brain works naturally. Some people have managed to build defenses for it, but most people simply lack the ability. That's like blaming people on wheelchair that they can't walk.
Exactly! I can't even stand physical ads like billboards because the concept of reserving land for manipulating every passing person into buying something they don't need is ridiculously perverse to me. Ads are an attack against my psyche and I will do everything I can to avoid them.
When I want to invest in a better product or look for something that solves my wants or needs, I research my options. I will never make my decision based on an obvious ad because they are intrinsically deceitful.
I hate ads as much as the next guy, but without ads get ready to start paying for things. You go to a news website, sorry you need to login and hand over your credit card to access anything. Youtube? Sorry you need to login and pay up to watch anything. You want to Google,Bing, Duckduckgo something sorry you better pay up can't sell you data to advertisers anymore.
Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing but it will fundamentally change how the internet works and it potentially could limit informational access to poor people.
I brought this up the last time I talked about this, but to be clear, if we must choose between advertisements and paywall, then we should chooseadvertisementsas the lesser evil. However, we must never accept the fallacy that advertising or paywalls are theonlypossible choices! More generally, we must never accept the fallacy that a market is the only acceptable way to distribute goods, a corollary of which is the idea that any acceptable solution needs to compete on equal terms with existing products in a market.
Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing but it will fundamentally change how the internet works and it potentially could limit informational access to poor people.
Well the first part at least would be a welcome change. The issue in my view is the very fact that poor people are treated as second-class citizens in information access or any other field of endeavor.
Youtube? Sorry you need to login and pay up to watch anything. You want to Google,Bing, Duckduckgo something sorry you better pay up can't sell you data to advertisers anymore.
I very genuinely want those sites to fucking die so I don't have to coexist in a world where they dominate the internet. I would be literally thrilled to join a group of like-minded people who have to reimplement the conveniences of the modern web from scratch for free.
Are there a nontrivial number of people who genuinely enjoy ads?
Maybe? My parents are boomers and they watch cable TV with ads. I've told them a few dozen times that they don't need to watch them, that they could mute them or watch elsewhere, but they don't care. My grandmother also watches the ads when she watches TV. Oh well...
How do you reach people with a new product that didn't exist before? Or a Service? Do you want monopolys that never change because smaller business cant advertise with their stuff.
I don't like 99% of advertising either, especially online, but there are some exceptions.
How do you reach people with a new product that didn't exist before? Or a Service?
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. No one remembers the former generations, and even those yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them.
—Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, New International Version
EDIT: I'm not a Christian and I'm not trying to convert anyone to my faith (or lack thereof), I just think it's a neat quote.
My point really is that you can generally talk about your products in some existing forum with reference to existing things. For example, if I wanted people to listen to my music, which I have deluded myself into thinking is a unique, previously unheard-of blend of genres, I would post links onto music forums and groups who are interested in recommendations of music adjacent to the type I produce. And that is how I actually spread my music on Reddit (although not as PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S) back when it was fresh. No ads, no wasting people's time and internet. I only reached people who already expressed their interest to receive music like mine. I got a very small following, but I achieved my goal.
Nothing is so unique that it belongs in no forum or is of interest to no existing community, yet simultaneously needs to be broadcast to the entire world. I have no problem with people sending me stuff they believe in to my email or other inbox, blow it up for all I care, but what I do take issue with is shoving that stuff into my web browsing experience or even sandwiched into the content I'm trying to watch.
Clearly an advancement from simple electromagnetism, which was the unification of the previous studies of electricity and magnetism. Not fully original.
Genetic engineering
Based on prior analysis of genetics, which itself descended from simple breeding, and chemistry. Not fully original.
Quantum computing
Hybrid of computing with quantum principles. Not fully original.
Like I get it, we do discover new stuff and create new techniques, but (1) these physics still existed before we discovered them and (2) (much more importantly) these things are not new in the sense that they're not totally unique, that we can compare them to things that exist because they are inspired by things that already exist.
I mulled over whether or not to quote the Bible directly once I figured out where that quote came from, and I ultimately decided to do so because of the Bible's reputation for needing to be "read into". I think that particular passage says something really interesting about how, in some sense, nothing really new happens, that what we're doing can be seen as a version of something else. This is particularly interesting as a piece of a Christian document; Christianity generally doesn't posit a cyclical view of the world. You live, you die, you go into the afterlife, judgement day happens, and God's chosen few spend eternity in heaven; e.g., the plot is linear. Therefore, there clearly must be some deeper context to the text.
Regardless, it was a minor part of my original argument. The rest should stand on its own.
Also, I went to Catholic school. I'd like to use my religion classes for something; I'm most certainly not using them for praying 😂
Ok so I suppose you'll be using raw electromagnetism instead of anything that uses advanced electronics? Just because something has a history doesn't mean it's not new, and even if that were the case, just because something's not new that doesn't mean it's not a useful improvement.
What I meant in the original argument is that nothing can be so new and original that we cannot talk about it without referencing previous concepts and those forums. For example, results in advanced electronics were initially presented in early electrical engineering theses presented to engineers and physicists interested in electrical [1] phenomena.
We would not need to show advertisements to promote advanced electronics. There are already forums of people interested in electrical engineering. We can promote advanced electronics to our heart's content in those forums.
Ok so I suppose you'll be using raw electromagnetism instead of anything that uses advanced electronics?
So this is a bit of a non-sequitur, but at some point in a complex design I might actually have to go back to "raw electromagnetism", e.g. numerically solving Poisson's equation or Maxwell's equations for crucial parts of the circuit, depending on how small things are. What you learn in a typical electronics class is a behavioral approximation that's good for describing the general expected behavior of a circuit, but not always precise enough to finish a design.
[1] Loosely, an electrical device is any device that uses electricity. An electronic device is a device that does "something" "smart". For example, an amplifier is an electronic device as is a digital timer, whereas a light bulb is electrical but not electronic. Modern "Electrical engineering" is more precisely "Electronics engineering".
The average person shouldn’t be allowed to drive. It’s extremely dangerous and most people are desensitized to it and absolutely don’t take the natural responsibility towards others that comes with having the ability to kill someone with a finger twitch (or a slight lapse in attention) seriously enough. I don’t think it would be allowed if it was just invented this year.
This is why I personally am looking forward to fully self-driving cars. We’re a long way off, but when self-driving cars can completely replace the human element, I think the world will be a much safer place.
How about spacial inefficiency? A car only carries 1-6 people compared to a train which carries dozens or even hundreds. Or a bus which carries dozens.
Traffic and parking are the biggest issue i see with cars and space efficiency. Both can be significantly improved on with self driving. Especially if most people opt for public ownership of cars and not private. Something think will become more popular as self driving takes over and lowers the cost of taking the self driving equivalent of a taxi or Uber.
By the way i think self driving cars will make trains more popular. As trains suck at first and last mile transportation. Self driving solves the first and last mile issues.
If we're going to opt for public ownership then why would you choose the less efficient single passenger method over already-established public infrastructure like trains and trams and buses which have been proven to work well in other countries?
Also please elaborate on how self driving cars will improve parking issues. And as for traffic, while self-driving cars will be less likely to cause accidents and jams, hundreds of independent low-capacity vehicles are in no way more effective than a single locomotive carrying those hundreds of people in a smaller space.
You're allowed to like self-driving cars, but buses and trains are objectively more efficient in the large scale and all you have to do is acknowledge that. The more people realize this, the more room there is for us to make progress
If we’re going to opt for public ownership then why would you choose the less efficient single passenger method over already-established public infrastructure like trains and trams and buses which have been proven to work well in other countries?
Simple we have already chosen cars in the US. It is far easier to use the existing roads to our advantage then try and redesign the entire country to fit a train and tram and bus model.
Also please elaborate on how self driving cars will improve parking issues.
In a public car the car will drop people off and drive away to pick up other people. There would be no need parking at all. Just a small drop off and pickup location.
Now this won't work as well if we are talking about private ownership cars, but it would be better as the car can drop you off and then drive to a centralized parking location. This would remove the need for street parking or parking lots next to restaurants and stores. Or if your planning to stay a long time for exmaple if your going to work for 8 hours. I think many people might want rent out their car during the day. Car drops me off at work and I tell the car to join the "public car" network for 8 hours and it can go find some people to transport.
And as for traffic, while self-driving cars will be less likely to cause accidents and jams, hundreds of independent low-capacity vehicles are in no way more effective than a single locomotive carrying those hundreds of people in a smaller space.
Oh sure it won't be as effective but it will be much better then what we have now. And there are benefits cars have over trains. For example after a the world pandemic scare I find traveling in my own space a much more pleasant experience then sharing with many other people. Also I really like listening to music in a car as full volume very enjoyable experience that you just can't do on a public train :). A car will be a single vehicle to my destination, I can get in a fall asleep if I want. Buses and trains are usually multiple vehicles and you need to be some what alert to know when your stop is.
what you say makes sense, not saying you're completely wrong, but your whole argument is based off the fact that we have already chosen cars. But simply doubling down on a worse solution just puts us deeper in to the hole, instead of making the more difficult decision of redirecting some of our massive amounts of GDP in to larger scale projects (yknow instead of wasting billions on military spending & corporate bailouts) such as making the investment into the development of a proper rail network BESIDE our existing infrastructure, like china has done for example.
(not supporting china but it is true that they have made massive progress in public transportation across a country equally large as ours, in a relatively very short time)
Too many places let you drive if you do the happy path stuff right: stopping at a stop sign, changing lanes safely, etc. But the most important time of your driving is when you're about to hit a semitruck and you need to get your car out of the way, and there is no training material for this at all. People often panic and slam the brakes and aggressively turn the wheel, which is a perfect setup for understeer and losing control of your car. They are literally getting in a situation where they are about to die and they choose to greatly increase their risk due to negligence.
It's cheaper to run simulators than purchase cars and hire trainers. Get em in nasty situations and teach them how to get out of it. For real, if mom and dad can't evade sinking their freeway missile into a van full of kids, they shouldn't be able to get behind the wheel and be presented with opportunities where this might happen any time they drive.
Maybe doing this will also make people more hesitant to get behind the wheel. If more people are aware of the risks of driving, maybe they’ll start to demand alternatives
Germany's driving test (and school) is fairly strict and will fail you for small mistakes which is good for beginners but after all, there is no test or reinsurance after some years of driving. After some time, people will see driving as a right not a privilege. This is the case for the vast majority of counties. This is the problem.
Problem is that there's no other alternative for most people. Unless you live in a city, public transportation isn't a valid option. Most people living in most locations (at least in the US) have to have personal vehicles to attend school/work, shop, and socialize.
Once self driving cars become commonly available, driving will no longer be a requirement and I think that driving licenses should be stricter on who's allowed to drive.
The way I see it is fuck em, if you can't safely drive and follow the rules to mimimize risk for everyone around you then pay for a taxi or take the bus. No public transport? Get your ass on a bike. Everytime I go out, even for a short 10 minute drive to the grocery store, 90% of the time I see someone doing something insanely stupid and dangerous but because nothing bad comes of it they don't learn not to do that.
Driving a vehicle should be considered a huge privilege considering how easy it is to kill not just yourself, but others simply by being a dumbass and not taking it seriously enough. People back up without looking, make turns without looking, tons of dumb shit constantly, shit I had someone merge into my lane without even looking when I was right beside them, I had to slam on my brakes to get out of the way and I was only able to do that because there was no one behind me. I honked at them and they just flipped me off. There should also be a forced age limit for being able to drive cause old people are fucking terrible drivers, or at the very least they should have yearly tests past a certain age to ensure they're still capable of driving.
Drive properly and safely or deal with the massive consequences of not being able to get around quickly. Need a license to get to/do your job? Drive safely or get fucked. Absolutely zero sympathy for shitty drivers.
Can't agree more. The microlabels are too much at this point. You do not need mix sexual orientation, which is the sex we are naturally attracted to, with having preferences, which are the qualities we find attractive in a person or a relationship. The two are completely separate.
Upvoted, but I have a slight disagreement. I think bisexual should actually be a label under pansexual. Bisexual doesn’t necessarily account for anyone outside the gender binary.
I do mean no exceptions. They rarely do "good things" for anyone.
Having a homeless shelter where you require the homeless to attend mass is not helping people, it's taking advantage of people in a bad situation and forcing your views on them. Just one example.
I upvoted you, but do disagree with this a bit, there are a few religions which set up food for anyone willing to come inside, like I went to eat langar at a Sikh temple during my friend’s wedding, and all we have to do is cover our head out of respect. Grab a plate, sit on the floor, and eat.
I randomly went with my friend a couple days later, and they still had food out, so it’s not a wedding only thing, but they actually have cooks in the kitchen most of the day.
My unpopular opinion is that people who keep throwing this stupid idea around have no clue what they're talking about.
Religions / churches are non-profits. Their only revenue is post-tax donations. The people who work at the non-profit churches still pay income tax. The moment you start taxing a church, you allow them to function as a corporation. Not taxing churches is a fundamentally great thing.
I don't disagree with you on principle, but in practice, allowing the taxation of religious groups would create massive opportunities for abuse. Tax code can be structured to promote one religion and punish another, and you know for damn sure that our elected officials won't hesitate to put their greasy thumbs on the scale.
Do they tax income? Investments? Real estate? Spending? Endowments? Salaries? Each of those would create a disparity in how much a specific group owes. Consider how the Mormons collect and spend money vs Catholics, or how Quakers don't have preachers, just elders, while evangelical preachers earn hundreds of millions.
Any tax gives a massive advantage to the religions of the wealthy. You'd end up with four mega churches and a bunch of underground religious communities meeting in secret and sharing holy books smuggled in from Canada.
While I'd love to see churches start paying their fair share, I also see the way our tax code works now. We can't get economic elites and the well connected to pay their fair share, what makes you think that it will happen with the religious economic elites and the religious well connected? It's always the little people who suffer the most.
That's a reasonable question, and I'm open to different points of view on what exactly that means.
In a general sense, I believe taxes are the price of admission for society. We all contribute, and we all benefit from roads and schools and firefighters and streetlamps and building inspectors and and and on. A church benefits as much as any other business, and really should be taxed like a business. They are in the business of fundraising, and money spent on fundraising and supporting the church should be taxed. I also think money spent on charitable works should be tax deductible the same way it is with other businesses. Money donated to churches in excess of the charitable work they do should not be tax deductible by the donor.
In an ideal world, that would mean paying income tax at the established rates, property taxes, payroll taxes for non-charity workers, and whatever municipal and state taxes are required wherever the church is located.
But as I said, that leaves the door wide open for abuse by politicians looking to promote their own faith. There are already corrupt policies promoting "social clubs" in dry towns, and morality taxes on products like cigarettes, HFCS beverages, alcohol, marijuana where it's legal, etc. Don't you think they'd find a way to tax the Satanic Temple into oblivion given the opportunity?
How many Christian holidays are promoted through the federal holiday calendar? Winter Break never doesn't coincide with Christmas.
So yeah, in conclusion, churches that don't operate as "not for profit" businesses should not be tax exempt, but keeping government out of religion is more important to me.
Ok, thanks for clarifying your stance, I think I understand now.
I can see how this could get complicated depending on the organization. For example, my church has distinct legal entities so that the "not-for-profit" side and the "business" side are kept separate.
I agree that keeping the government out of religion is extremely important.
On the last day of my college internship a senior VP at my little company invited me into his office presumably to get to know me prior to extending a full-time offer. To break the ice he asked me what my favorite Star Wars movie was. I smiled and replied that I could never get through any of them.
As I was uttering these words I began to notice the giant Star Wars poster directly behind the gentleman. It then dawned on me that his office was chalk full of Star Wars memorabilia.
The man did not ask me any further questions. He shook my hand, thanked me for my great work, and I never stepped foot into those offices ever again.
If I come across you in a dark alley and we're all alone then you better be ready cos I'll accept your opinion and offer some other suggestions of movies that we might like, such as all 3 Lord of the Rings (extended editions of course).
We don't need more pronouns. We need less of them.
In my native language there is no even he/she pronouns. The word is “hän” and it’s gender neutral. You can be male, female, FTM, MTF, non-binary or what ever and you’re still called “hän”. You can identify as anything you like and "hän" already includes you.
That sounds like a solution that should make everyone happy. However, the crowd arguing against more pronouns would also argue against this, just because they're impossible to appease.
Wouldn't be surprised if the (mostly) political right that seems all these new pronouns as stupid would also ironically be against giving up on their own gender specific pronoun for a gender neutral one.
I'll go one further: I get (and respect) the utility of they/them pronouns for a singular entity, but it IS clunky and confusing. English is ever evolving but when I hear a "they" it is still very much more abstract and plural than a more specific he or she.
Whatever: it's my shit and I'll gladly deal with a nanosecond of confusion and adjust if it allows people to maintain their dignity. Point is, by insisting that there's nothing confusing about they/them in reference to a single entity feels disingenuous. I know moderate people who are otherwise live and let live as well as receptive to basic human dignity who are turned off by the confusing abstraction, switching tenses, etc.
They/them isn't the elegant, seamless drop in that people say it is and it hurts the messaging. I get that being rigid and forceful is necessary with the rampant transphobia and "i'm just asking (bad faith) questions" going on, but I still fuck up semantics and tenses like whoa
This argument has never made sense simply because of the fact that singular they/them has been in use for literally centuries. It's even reasonable to say it's always been in use considering singular they/them was in use in the 14th century and modern English formed around 14-17th. I can guarantee you have never batted an eye when you heard something like "someone called but they didn't leave a message".
There are only two differences with recent usage: people are less likely to assume genders so use they/them more freely; and people identifying specifically as they/them. The words themselves haven't really changed, they're just more common now. Opposition to singular they/them is almost entirely political.
It’s not people using the neutral that bothers me, it’s the fact that the neutral is both singular and plural while the non neutrals are only singular/plural.
and the plural part also alters the entire sentence structure to plural.
“He is over there” - Singular and easy to understand
“They is over there” - Just sounds wrong.
“They are over there” - Both singular and plural. Is it a person of unspecified nature or multiple people of mixed ones?
English could use a popularization of a strictly singular neutral that doesn’t carry implications of being an object rather than a being (“It is over there”)
I feel the same but with genders. To be clear if anyone identifies to a specific gender, I'll respect that. However I don't see why genders are necessary. We are all unique human beings and there's no need to label everyone to a specific gender.
We should remove the gender information from ID and other documents unrelated to the gender
(Maybe kept the XX or XY mark on medical papers though, may be useful to avoid death from medical poisoning, but even your gender and sexual preferences have nothing to do here, so no gender mark neither)
And we've nowadays taken it even further, in spoken Finnish we've even got rid of the "hän" and mostly use "se", which is the Finnish word for "it". The same pronoun is used for people in all forms, animals, items, institutions and so on, and in practice the only case for "hän" is people trying to remind others they consider their pets human.
Being fat is a choice the vast majority of the time, and I have a huge bias against big people.
I used to be fat (250ish lbs (110ish kg) at 5'8"ish (172ish cm)), and as much as I would like to blame my shit on anything else, the person feeding me, the person sitting at the computer for hours, the person actively avoiding all physical activity was me and no one else. After I got diagnosed with some weight related shit, I turned my entire life upside down, am at a much healthier 150 lbs (68ish kg), and feel so much better, both physically and mentally.
I'm aware of my bias, and I make every active effort to counter it in my actual dealings with bigger people. Especially because there are certain circumstances, however rarely, where it may not actually be their fault. But I'd be lying if I said my initial impression was anything except "God, what a lazy, fat fuck."
I used to be fat, and when I watch morbidly obese people talk about how much they love food and it makes them happy and makes them feel better that is 100% me. Food is absolutely an addiction for some people, including me. Thankfully I have it under control to be at a healthy weight and lose weight when I need to, but some of these people have absolutely tragic childhoods or life experiences and I don't blame them at all for coping in that way. I could 100% see myself in that position if I had been through what they have been through.
However, those people are self aware that they are unhealthy. The people I can't stand are the "healthy at every size" fat acceptance people. Healthy at every size was SUPPOSED to be that you can make positive health focused changes at any size and there is no point of no return. But it got twisted into I can be morbidly obese and I am still 100% healthy forever. And they even make people feel bad for wanting to lose weight, even if it's for health reasons. Those people are trash and fall on the same level as antivax people IMO.
Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, until you start spewing harmful bullshit and then I will judge you as much as I want.
I'm also a comfort eater. Huge sweet tooth, and almost 0 self-control when the hunger kicks in. My diet fix was making sure I only buy and order what I should eat, because I will clean my plate. I've accepted that, and making sure there's only the appropriate amount of food in front of me has worked wonders. Holidays and special occasions are sometimes tough, with family shoving food in my face, but I just exercise extra hard afterward, lol.
I definitely agree with you about the fat acceptance movement. I have to leave those conversations before I start saying things I regret. Again, I try really hard to manage my bias.
I have a weight problem and I told my wife, who berates me for it, that if there is food I shouldn't eat in the house, then I will eat it. It's that simple. I'll eat a lot of what's available.
I've lost 30 lbs before with intermittent fasting and taking calories. I know what works for me.
Anyways, she insists that I'm being unreasonable and that I should eat in moderation. She buys ice cream and then will eat a spoonful every 30 days.
I've been very lucky in that my wife has been very supportive and understanding, but I'm the same way. My rule is that I'm not allowed to shop hungry, because I'll buy shit I don't need to eat, and then I'll eat it because it's there.
I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately and your comment is interesting. Your first sentence is definitely phrased in a more controversial way than the rest of your comment, but I can't help seeing it as very similar to "Being depressed is a choice the vast majority of the time, and I have a huge bias against depressed people." Is that an unfair comparison?
I know that treating fatness/obesity as a disease is kinda controversial but I feel like folks give people dealing with mental health a lot more grace than people dealing with health issues related to being fat. I've also heard that for some people they can be perfectly healthy at a higher weight (though this is clearly not the case for many fat people who are seeing health impacts). I guess I'm assuming that a lot of fat people would potentially like to be less so, but can't (for any number of reasons) quite get there. This seems really similar for me to people dealing with depression, anxiety, etc who want to change things but keep falling back into the problem.
I guess my question is do you have bias against people who can't escape other bad cycles like mental health or even stuff like alcoholism? Or is it more just that you think it's fair to judge people without the discipline/willpower to get out of a state they didn't want to be in, like you did.
This is a fair question. I guess maybe my statement could've been less broad. If just "being fat" is the primary problem, that's what I take issue with. If the problem is deeper, and being fat is a secondary issue (like a result of depression, hypothyroidism, or some other mental/physical ailment), then that's a different situation. My stance in that case is that the person should be actively trying to treat the primary problem. I know depression almost never just goes away. Sometimes it even sticks around with therapy and medicine, and that sucks hard. But at least they're trying.
This is an old thread, but taking your first comment into account, doesn't this make them guilty until proven innocent in your eyes? If your first thought is "what a fat lazy fuck" without knowing their story? That seems unnecessarily judgmental, and I can't help but wonder if it comes from a place of insecurity, maybe left over from your own history with weight
But ultimately you can't just blame people. There is literally an entire industry trying to sell you cheap carbs and fat. Down to the sound a bag of chips makes when you open it (this is not a joke).
So on one hand you have evolution, your body still being stuck in the past where food was scarce. On the other hand you have too much food and it's highly engineered to be addicting on purpose.
It's no surprise most people are going to lose that challenge.
Hmm I think that for a lot of people, it wasn't a choice to get fat. I know a lot of kids who are already obese and they aren't even in their teens.
However, I do think it's a choice once you've realized it and have the ability to actually do something about it.
Kinda related but unrelated: it irks me when someone comments how easy it is for me to be skinny, bc it isn't. As a previously underweight person, I think gaining and losing weight are just as hard. I had to control my diet, work out, and have a lot of self control to not lose the habits I was building. I folded and stagnated a lot, and yeah it was demotivating but I still had to make a choice to keep going.
But that doesn't mean go out and harass fat people. Trust me we fucking know. You can't lose weight instantly. Some of us may actually be working on it.
Also fat people have the right to be happy. People hating on "happy at any size" is just being assholes for the sake of it.
Oh I've actually been told by fat people that there's no way that I actually enjoy working out and that I'm forcing myself to go to the gym while not enjoying it.
Guess it's weird I like improving my physique and enjoying seeing how I can reach new goals ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
After I got diagnosed with some weight related shit, I turned my entire life upside down, am at a much healthier 150 lbs (68ish kg), and feel so much better, both physically and mentally.
Something disillusioning from the field of psychotherapy research: Our best, most interdisciplinary, low-threshold therapeutic strategies allow people to, on average, lose and hold the loss of up to 7-10% of the weight they've started with. Which isn't even enough to get most people out of the obesity range. What you've been through is exceptional. By far most people will never manage to lose that much, not even with professional help.
To put it this way: If we look at obesity like a mental disorder it's one of the hardest to overcome, harder than depression or anxiety.
I get why so many people share your opinion on this, I just feel like it's missing context. Because sure, physiologically its possible for a depressed person to "just go out more" or an anxious person to "just stop breathing so fast" or an overweight person to "just eat less and move more", but this is such an oversimplified way to look at how humans work and why they do what they do that is simply stops being correct. Every now and then you'll meet someone who managed to do all this just like that, but for the vast majority it's an unrealistic and unfair thing to ask.
Obesity is a chronic disorder and will continue to be until we get better treatments.
I would've thought you would've learned kindness out of that ordeal. Didn't people make fun of you? How'd it feel, even if you knew they were right? It's just rude and inappropriate. There's no need.
eve
As a disabled person who struggles to maintain a healthy weight, I'll tell you that yours is not an unpopular opinion. I know that mine is not the typical experience, and there are far more people who are overweight for reasons within their control, but let's not pretend the people celebrating obesity are the norm.
Regardless of your problems, shame is never productive. Looking down on people you perceive as "fat, lazy fucks," is just a way to make yourself feel better about yourself. "God, I'm glad I'm not like that piece of shit anymore." It's a form of self loathing, hating the way you used to be.
Be kinder to the person you used to be. That person probably could have used to positive support and thoughtful advice. Maybe then you wouldn't have needed to turn your entire life upside down just to get healthy. Don't be ashamed of your past choices. Own them, recognize why you made them, and learn how to be a better person tomorrow.
People who are strongly against nuclear power are ignorant of the actual safety statistics and are harming our ability to sustainably transition off fossil fuels and into renewables.
I feel this would have been spot on, in the nineties.
Right now the problems plaguing nuclear are economic. There is no guarantee you can build and exploit a plant and get to break even before either it becomes irrelevant, or you fall victim to regulatory jostling.
Nuclear was a missed opportunity, but the window is closing fast and it will probably remain a missed opportunity forever.
Most conservatives, however deeply red, are not intentionally hateful and are usually open to rational discussion. People just don't know how to have rational discussions nowadays and the few times they do, they don't know how to think like somebody else and put things in a way they can understand.
People nowadays think because a point convinced them, it should convince everybody else and anybody who's not convinced by it is just being willfully ignorant. The truth is we all process things differently and some people need to hear totally different arguments to understand, often put in ways that wouldn't convince you if you heard it.
It's hard to understand other people and I feel like the majority of people have given up trying in favor of assuming everybody who disagrees with you knows their wrong and refuses to admit it.
It is very hard to have rational disccussion when people disagree on the basic observable facts, ignore the "rules" of debate, and are struggling with critical thinking. You can meet difficult people on all the political spectrum, but certain idealogy attract more difficult people, and certain stuff mainstream conservatives believe right now has absolutely no basis in reality.
I have had plenty of conversations with people irl. Most of the them with people who are to the right of me on the political spectrum. What I found in the conversations that were fruitful, was that our disagreement on larger issues, such as economics or personal freedoms, tended to stem from disagreements on smaller issues. To paraphrase my friend, "We are using the same words, but they all mean different things." It seems to me that there are some elementary differences between progressives and conservatives that change how we rationalize the larger issues. That's how the two groups can, based on the same information, come to two different conclusions.
That being said though, I think Fox News and other conservative news channels have created information silos. Not everyone who is conservative has necessarily had access to the same body of facts and evidence that progressives have. I think a good portion of people who are stuck in those silos would change their views if they had a more balanced news diet.
I was going to post my rant about conservatives as a top level comment, but I didn't think it was unpopular enough.
I agree with your central premise that there is a disconnect of understanding and perception between progressives and conservatives.
However, it's not that conservatives haven't heard a convincing argument, or something that accounts for their perspective. This is part of the fundamental disconnect, and you're an excellent example of why people don't know how to put things in a way others will understand.
Conservativism is not a principled ideology. It is the political justification of narcissism in every form. Conservatives like being conservative because it gives them a free pass to be selfish and egocentric in their political beliefs. There is no foundational value system or policy that is inherently conservative.
The conservative ideology defines the self and the other. Nothing else is fixed. Whatever is good for the self is good, and whatever is bad for the self is bad.
That's it, that explains every conservative position ever held by any conservative since the invention of conservativism in the 1800s. From Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand wanting to roll back many of the reforms of the French Revolution, to Donald Trump becoming the Messiah, conservatives identify the self, and then do anything to benefit the self. Granted, Francois-Rene was a much better writer, but he was no less inconsistent in his desire to promote ideologies that benefitted himself and his peers.
Conservatives will couch their positions as staunch defense of tradition, and general opposition to change for the sake of change, but that's window dressing. They don't believe in stoicism or absolutism or really anything they claim to believe. And that's why you cannot have a rational debate with a conservative. That's why you won't ever convince them to change their minds on a subject simply by pointing out flaws in their logic or perception.
The only method that has ever worked at getting a conservative to shift or compromise is by showing them how it will benefit them. Why is this policy good for the self? What value will they receive in exchange for easing up on their intransigence? If you can convince a conservative to abandon an ideological position, you can be sure it's because they believe the new position is better for them.
Look at any conservative leader in history, any political pundit, any legislator or writer or conservative iconoclast. Viewed through the lens of narcissism, their intentions, their hypocrisies, their inconsistencies, they are all laid bare. There is no deeper meaning, no mystery to why they have had sudden changes or seemingly flip flopped on an issue. It's not that complicated.
So no, it's not that people don't know how to have rational discussions these days. It's that conservativism is anathema to rational thought, and it always has been. It's a license to be as hateful or ignorant or selfish as you want to be, and you needn't worry about defending your positions from things like facts, or realty, or reason, because those are tools of the other. If the other opposes you, they are evil and their reality, their facts, their reason is equally evil. They don't need to be refuted, they need to be destroyed by any means necessary. The self is good, therefore anything the self needs to do to win is good. Lies, deception, personal attacks, intimidation, threats, violence, all of them are justified by the belief in the righteous self. There is no bar too low to be stooped under, no treachery too vile to be considered, no accusation too false to be levied. A conservative with scruples is a conservative unchallenged.
Dogs were hardwired by selective breeding to worship their owners. Not long ago they at least were loyal companions. You got one off the streets, fed it leftovers, washed it with a hose, it lived in the yard, and it was VERY happy and proud of doing its job. Some breeds now were bred into painful disabling deformities just to look "cute", and they became hysterical neurotic yapping fashion accessories. Useless high maintenance toys people store in small cages ("oh, but my child loves his cage") when they don't need hardwired unconditional lopsided "love" to feed their narcissism.