• 0 Posts
  • 27 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • … Nah. As a woman, this is not a question I would ever think to ask anyone, regardless of how unsafe I felt. How does agreeing to murder someone AFTER something happens to you help you feel more safe? It doesn’t, at all. Besides, she could have called him from the Uber when she didn’t see him outside. It’s not like they just kick you out of the car immediately.

    OP described this behavior as “the usual,” which means this is a thing she does regularly. I would say this isn’t normal for most people to do regularly. If the location is actually not safe, then the conversation should be centered around “when are we going to move somewhere safer?” rather than “how would you murder someone if they hurt me” and especially getting into the specifics of “what would you do with the cat while doing the murder…?” I think this might be some kind of recurring “daycare” or maladaptive fantasy that keeps playing out in her imagination. There are certainly steps she could take to keep herself safe. But because she doesn’t, she feels powerless and then blames OP for her perceived lack of safety. OP cannot be responsible for her safety 24/7. That is an unfair expectation to have of anyone.






  • I see your confusion. They could have worded this better, but it’s two grants being split between eight nonprofit financial institutions. My understanding is these entities will lend that money to communities to do ongoing infrastructure projects. The goal is “turning $20 billion of public funds into $150 billion of public and private investment to maximize the impact of public funds.” I don’t know how that part works exactly, but to me that doesn’t sound like a handout. Of course I would hope they would be held responsible for any mismanagement.

    As for why they need to create a financial nework to do this: These kinds of projects can take many years and sometimes need ongoing financing. Apparently, when Obama tried to fund something like this, there was a lending bottleneck where I guess banks didn’t want to finance community infrastructure projects or something, so a lot of the funding just sat there until the grants expired. This is supposed to prevent that from happening.




  • If they know how many years they’ll hold the rights, that information should be given to the consumer, i.e., “you will have access to this media product for at least N years.” Then the consumer can make an informed decision (is $24.99 worth it to own a movie for 6 years? Etc). Otherwise it’s just a gamble. Everything else you can rent (cars, tools, equipment, venues, clothing, dumpsters) comes with very clear temporal terms. Imagine if rental car companies could remotely brick your rental car halfway through your vacation.




  • The earth is flat.

    If no one contradicts that statement or downvotes me or anything, someone might later come along and read it and believe it just because no one else disagreed. There are a lot of people who haven’t had a great education or don’t have critical thinking skills, or are actual children. When people just make claims with no discussion of the merit of those claims, how can the less educated figure out they’re not true? After all, if the host invited this hypothetical flat earther to be on their show, there must be something legit about them, right? They don’t just invite any rando person off the street onto their show, do they?


  • Just a PSA, the IRS recently instituted some kind of AI algorithm that is re-flagging a lot of things that have already been resolved… a friend got a bill for $1500 which they had earlier sent a letter of apology for. He doesn’t actually owe anything, it’s just the glitchy algorithm sending the old bill out again.

    If you don’t understand why you owe more, don’t just give up and pay it. The IRS can make mistakes too.






  • Don’t stand here and try to tell us it’s not a moral issue. It is. And people who refuse to learn anything are doing something wrong.

    I literally said it is a moral issue. And I get the importance of people changing. But you have to accept that you can’t control this. You can lead by example or you can try to educate people. If you really want to control people, become a dictator. Judging people doesn’t make the world a better place. OP said they don’t like religion, but this is exactly what religion does: it declares there’s one right way to live and judges anyone who dares to not live that way.


  • I think you’re mixing up intellectualism and morality. There are many reasons people choose not to eat meat, and some of those reasons are emotional or moral rather than intellectual. Some people only eat a vegan diet because their doctor told them they had to. Are those people somehow more intellectual than someone who researched the science and came to the conclusion that humans are omnivores?

    You have already judged the outcomes of people’s decisions as being objectively correct or incorrect. To you, eating meat is incorrect regardless of the reasons for doing so. That is not an intellectual stance, it is a moral one. You are ultimately judging people for having different values than you. Maybe they don’t care about the environment, maybe they don’t care about the safety of animals or other people. Like it or not, to care about those things is emotion. You can argue they’re wrong as much as you like, but you can’t prove that any human behavior is objectively “the right thing to do,” meaning you are not as objectively correct as you think you are. There isn’t a one-fits-all solution for how to live. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can stop judging others for not being like you.