I really wonder about this too. If Russia destroys those undersea cables, would that get a direct response? I would like to think so, because that’s a planet-scale disruption (I think?), but it really depends on the people in charge of the countries involved and their stomach for violence and escalation.

I’m passionate about minimizing war and I seriously hope we never fire nukes at each other again. But a country willing to inflict global damage as a kind of tantrum over their failures in a conflict they single-handedly started…I mean, we can’t tolerate that as a species. There’s gotta be a line somewhere.

Actually after a re-read, you were constructive and made reasonable points throughout. My bad, I dunno why I interpreted that last one so harshly, wasn’t really my business anyway.

What a dismissive, reductive response. As if your point of view is the only one with any merit.

Just want to back you up here and say the deeper ethos sometimes DOES matter. People need to stop acting like a piece of generally good advice applies to every situation ever. The “stop gatekeeping” pendulum has swung a bit too far (although the principle is great and, incidentally, punk as fuck!).

When did we decide everything has to be for everyone, and everyone has a right to participate in everything, just by virtue of existing? What would these folks say to someone who walks around in - e.g., Sikh cultural accoutrement - but has zero interest (and even a snobbish disdain) for the underlying religion? “Good for them, we shouldn’t gatekeep”? Fuck outta here.

On the one hand, all culture and art is syncretic, full stop. I’m not saying punk rock is off limits in any way, that’d be absurd. But at this point it’s got what, like 40 years of maintaining a broadly consistent ethos or spirit? That’s remarkable, it’s valuable, and it’s only been possible because of gatekeeping - passionate community members putting forth effort to maintain the community identity. In a time when every damn thing of cultural significance is being hollowed out and commoditized for profit, we should all celebrate punk rock staying punk.

I just don’t agree that most folks mean the middle panel. It really depends who and where you ask. A lot of people have - for example - a big problem with Affirmative Action because it looks like the middle panel - different help given to different people.

I think it depends a lot on the people using the words. People who don’t believe that the systematized slavery as practiced in the US produced long-lasting generational effects, for example, might say that treating people equally moving forward is best. Under that belief system, everyone starts on ~even footing and gets the same opportunities, so actually it’s less fair to make special cases for folks!

In my view those folks are starting from a deeply flawed premise (and usually one they’ve arrived at in order to justify the worldview they already hold), so their conclusions are worthless. But I think they’d meet the criteria of advocating for equality and against equity, and sincerely mean it. It’s not hypothetical either, I’ve met people like this - depressingly many, in fact.

Ah, fair, and nope I’m US based but I basically have what I’ve concluded must be an abnormal desire for accuracy and specificity with language. I just prefer and appreciate nuanced, specific meanings. But I’m also well aware that vocabulary and grammatical rules are only ever just guidelines - language is a living thing defined by the people that use it, by the way that they all choose to use it - it’s all essentially just this massive consensus with a rich and detailed topology, and I love that part too. So I’m not even very consistent when it comes down to it, lol.

Asocial and antisocial are really quite different, though we (societally) confuse the two words - even a quick Google gives pretty mixed answers. If you aren’t playing games for the express purpose of ruining the fun of others, you sound more asocial than antisocial to me. Just throwing that out there in case it happens to be useful.

I’m an elder millennial that had the rad but - overall - kinda bummer experience, where I got to enjoy this kinda vibe just a few times. Looking back it feels almost like a fever dream - it was so cool, but so fleeting.

Butter! Never woulda considered that one. I do most of your others though. Also fish sauce, or hoisin, I really like adding a spoonful of red miso.

My more surprising one is a slice of American cheese on top - sounds wrong but it’s killer.

Thanks so much, this is exactly what I was looking for.

I also know exactly what you mean - weirdly, maybe the most potentially harmful thing about cannabis is the way it makes doing nothing tolerable and even enjoyable. I think overuse does lead to a lot of very stunted life trajectories and ultimately unfulfilling time spent on earth for many people. Certainly did for me in my youth. Of course there are the rare folks like my buddy who smokes daily for decades on end and does more stuff than I do.

In myself I’ve noticed that it makes me much more shy and less willing to engage with others when under the influence. Oddly enough I can sometimes be more productive with it, though, because the right dose tends to quiet my otherwise kind of scattered attention and I’ll work on just one thing rather than 4 at once (badly). I write software for a living and a small dose actually helps me just grind out some boring code that needs to get written. But like you said it limits depth so it’s not good for thinking about project structure and decision making. And at higher doses it does leave me very content with doing very little - at least in the moment.

Anyway. I’ll keep my eye on it, thanks for relating your experience!

Would you be willing to elaborate on the negative effects you observed that led to your decision to drop it? I gave up alcohol this year - I’ve slowly been adding in cannabis lately and want to watch for issues with overuse and such.

I really can’t understand how you could read it that way, when the last phrase is “or will they simply forget Trump given time”. The poster sure seemed to go out of their way to not describe a preferred outcome but just to wonder how this turns out, how his supporters will respond, and how much their response even matters. If they’re questioning whether those people’s reaction even matters, does that sound like advocating on their behalf?

I understand interpretation of written text is always a little ambiguous, but jumping to “you’re saying Trump should go free so his supporters aren’t sad?!” - nearly your direct words - just feels like either a very intentional misreading or just the briefest possible look at what the poster wrote. It just isn’t there at all and you came across weird and hostile.

They never took that position at all, deliberately said so even. Quit with that antagonistic, unnecessarily hostile Reddit-style garbage.