If this is true, why are you here on lemmy, leaving comments and interacting with society?
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 1021
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 1021
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- JumpRemoved Locked
why are the vegans on lemmy so insufferable?
Because they are a religion, doing religious things. Their main goal isn't to stop harm to animals, but rather, to gain a sense of self worth by taking an unassailable moral position.
Hence, the people who make them angriest aren't the people who hate them - but the people who ignore them.
- JumpRemoved
PieFed Flagship Instance Shadowbanning Instances from Discoverability & Other Questionable Updates
Actual reason is that these instances have been supporting antisemitism under the cover of antizionism, frequently have calls for violence, and generally whine and cause drama in the service of advertizing their instances (see above).
I mean, you can resolve your current problem with a single conversation. You say to your wife "hey, I feel like you are acting super checked out. What's going on?" You will get one of three answers:
- Yeah, I hate this, I want to end it.
- I'm so sorry, I had no idea, I've been going through such-and-such, I'll try to be better.
- Something evasive or noncommittal.
If 3, you need to come back with "Hey, no, this is a real problem for me. We need to figure this out." And press the issue until it resolves to 1 or 2.
The outcome with be either improved communication in your relationship (possibly facilitated via couples councilling) or a divorce. Or you can choose to do nothing, and live with the current situation as it is. But I wouldn't suggest this.
Or - they are selecting for people that are good at understanding how to reframe. Which is probably one of the most important skills you can have in life.
Like, if they ask "why do you want this job?" And your answer is "because I want money" then you will not get the job. Not because you lied or failed to lie, but because you failed to acknowledge the context of the question. The interviewer wants to know why you won't be a miserable sack of shit while working there, because they don't want to deal with that in a coworker. And it is useful to consider the framing that leads to the answer "because I want money" - it is the assumption that jobs and money are scarce for you, and you desperately need any job right now. And this is the type of person most employers are desperate not to hire - which is why you hate this question. Because it outs you as someone people don't want to hire.
The better framing is that you are confident that you can get any number of jobs, that you are looking for one that will pay you, of course, but that you also care about a number of other things like the day to day tasks you'll be doing, the people you'll be working with, and the impact you'll be having on others.
And neither of these framings are untrue. Your desperation to get a job is a function of your emotional state. Sure, you can want to get a job sooner rather than later - but all you have to do is realize that things will still be okay if it takes a bit longer to get the job you want than you would really like it to. And we can observe this to be true - that everything will be okay - because it has been true every other time in your life (you're still here, aren't you) and in others' lives.
Literally any "annoying" interview question that gets listed here will typically not stop being asked, because it serves a purpose for the interviewer. If you are annoyed with questions about "what are your strengths", "what are your weaknesses", "where do you see yourself in 5 years" - interviewers know these are cliches. They don't care. The fact that they are cliches means they get to catch you the person who hasn't bothered to think of an answer to these questions, and not hire you. Sure, some interviewers are going to ask these questions with blind naivete - but some know that they are actually asking "can you answer a simple fucking question that you don't like answering without having a breakdown?"
It is not hard to come up with answers to these questions. Hell, you can practice saying the answers in the mirror or to a friend, and come off 100% more confident and polished than other candidates. So just do that and come out ahead, rather than dreading these questions, flying in unprepared, and bombing the interview on what should be a gimme
Douchebags, obviously.
No, really, it's basically the same thing. Healthy, ambitious, intelligent, nice guys with golden retriever energy will attract those girls. If you are having trouble, then your problem is either presentation, or substance, or both.
Substance - are you actually a healthy, ambitious, intelligent, nice guy with golden retriever energy? Like, do you exercise and eat healthy and sleep enough most days? Do you have lofty goals that you are working towards and that you are making significant progress on? Can you sit down and solve problems by thinking about them, or else do you have a witty sense of humor? Do you try to treat everyone with kindness, and help others when you can? Do you walk into social situations excited to see all your old friends with a huge smile on your face, and ready to get to know every stranger there with the expectation that they will eagerly give you head scratches? Because if not, the perscription is simple - go be that guy. Of course, you don't have to be perfect - but as long as you are making progress in any of these things, you are going to be a more attractive date.
Presentation - like... do you look good? I mean, I guess backing up, do you look at all - that is, are you even showing up to places where you can meet new people you might want to date? Because you can be the most dashing gentleman in the world, but it doesnt matter if you never leave the house. Even online dating, at some point, will require you to leave the house. Anyway - you don't just need to be good, you need to look good. Groom yourself, express who you are by how you dress (make it good, not cringe), and then leave the house and say hello to people you'd like to date. Yeah, you have to say hello. Sexual dimorphic behavior is still alive and well on the dating scene, and this is your job - so nut up and start talking to pretty girls. Lots of women get turned on by the simple fact that a guy too the initiative to talk to them in the first place. Then, just move the conversation towards having a date. Done
But I can tailor my feeds to be primarily people I know. Also, I have largely stopped using the feeds on these platforms. On fb, for example, I use Messenger and Marketplace. My feed, otoh, I scroll down through for a post or two that my friends made on my way to marketplace, then stop scrolling once it runs out of content relevant to me.
On reddit, content made by people I don't know is all the content. So if it degrades in quality, I will stop showing up. Which I did. Which is why I'm here.
Two reasons.
I think /u/trem gives a reasonable statitical explaination. But it likely goes farther than that. The reality is, these days it is generally considered impolite to start a conversation with a stranger without pretense, and especially so to start a conversation with a woman with romantic intentions. The zeitgeist of our time is that women, by default, are not interested in men's advances, and that making an advance on a woman for no reason other than her physical appearance (which is all you can know before approaching) is chauvinistic. Thus, almost all intelligent, pro-social men have been trained not to make advances on women they might be interested in in public. So who are you left with? The dumb, not-forward-thinking, idgaf crowd. The kind that spend every night at the bar, and then don't care if anyone thinks they are a trashy peice of shit. And so that's who approaches you.
The second reason is probably something about the vibe you are giving off. Reading your post here, and a few of your other comments on lemmy, I get the impression that you are walking around with an expression like you have a smear of shit under your nose. Like, I get that you aren't interested in these men - but the way you say it, you sound like a very judgemental person who believes she is better than everyone else because she doesn't eat fast food or something. And the problem with this vibe you are giving off is that it is going to repel the guys you want to attract - healthy, ambitious, intelligent, nice guys who want a healthy, ambitious, intelligent, nice girl. Maybe they interact with you a bit and think "oh, she's judgemental, I don't want to date her." Or maybe they simply see the default look on your face and say "hmm, she looks pissed - I bet she'd yell at me if I tried to talk to her." The girls who get lots of attention from attractive guys are the ones with golden retriever energy - they love meeting everyone, which means the attractive guys feel less nervous about striking up a conversation and asking them out. It reassures them that, even if this girl isn't interested, she will at least be nice about it.
Where did I imply that making it so the planet doesnt kill us impacts only the companies?
You implied it when twice you went on long tangents going into the minutiae of the carbon production process while avoiding providing the simple, obvious answer to the question. Why do those companies produce all that carbon? Because they are making things that people want and need.
The problem with this framing is that it implies that climate change exists solely due to a few bad actors, and if we just constrained them or sestroyed them or whatever, then we would all live happily ever after. But this is not the case.
Suppose we round up all the CEOs and major shareholders to these companies tomorrow, and put them on a firing line, and threaten anyone else with the same if they don't immediately dissolve the companies. Well, after maybe a year or two of a global economic crisis and restructuring of the world's supply lines, do you think carbon emmissions would have gone down? Probably not. Instead, you would likely have new major players who stepped into the old companies roles. Or maybe now those roles are more dispersed - so instead of 7 companies emmitting all this carbon, we now have 700 million.
Now, I'm not saying that the concentration of global economic power isn't a problem. But it isn't the main problem to solve if we want to solve climate change. Because the production of carbon isn't driven by companies making products, but by consumers demanding products. Nigerians coming out of poverty want dirty two stroke mopeds. Vietnamese pho vendors want propane to power their food carts. Latvian software developers want to display their wealth by driving low end luxury cars. Argentinian housewives want to eat steak for every meal. And remote villiagers in Pakistan want to keep enjoying the power they now have in their homes for only the last few years that comes from the coal plant 100km away. And if we want to snap our fingers and decarbonize the world, then at least some of these people are going to face disruptions to some of these goods.
That doesn't mean that a decarbonized world has to be worse for everyone. But it means that maybe Latvian software developers need to develop a taste for expensive watches, and maybe Argentinian housewives will need to learn to grill jackfruit, and maybe an NGO needs to pay for rural Pakistanis to have solar panels on their roofs. But the actual number of companies that are the endpoints of pollution based on whatever statistical analysis is fairly irrelivant. Whether it is 7 companies or 700 million, we need to stop the demand for carbon intensive goods that is driving the supply - and that means changing peoples preferences or creating alternatives for those preferences to be met which do not depend on carbon emmissions.
The "constantly immediately responsive" part also means he's probably a workaholic
You might be exaggerating a bit, but you're right. I have quite a number of friends from, say, college or other interests that I want to keep up with. But maybe they live far away, or are now busy with a different stage in their lives, so we don't or can't hang out casually like we used to to catch up. I avoided IG for more than a decade out of a desire to not get addicted to it and somethingsomethingfuckcorporate or whatever. But the practical outcome of this is that I've lost contact with a lot of good friends that I would like to keep up with. Not through any malintent on either of our parts, but simply because I am choosing not to be on the platform where they share about their lives.
And along with your point, a great number of community events are run on these social media sites. There is a facebook group dedicated to playing pickup ultimate frisbee in my city, and I want to do that. So if I want to stay up to date on things going on in the group, like new games being scheduled or regular games being rainchecked, I need to be on facebook.
I often organize canyoneering trips for my friend group, and these trips often may have up to 40 people interested in going. And often there are one or two people who can't join the facebook or whatsapp chats because for whatever reason they don't have accounts on those platforms. It is so annoying to have to text them every new detail and update because they aren't on the platform everyone else is on. I'll do it, but it's annoying.
The point they are trying to get at is that the vast majority of carbon produced by these companies is produced to see to the wants and needs of common people, and it is disingenuous to imply that solving climate change would impact no one except these companies shareholders.
Most carbon isn't being created to build data centers. It is used to build roads, apartments, office buildings, cars, and trains. It is created by people driving cars or using gas stoves or eating hamburgers or running a heat pump on electricity generated in a coal plant. It is created when cheap plastic knick knacks are manufactured in indonesia, shipped across an ocean, and then transported overland to a store where they can be bought, used today, and thrown in the dump the next.
So regardless of where you apply pressure to stymie climate change, common people will be impacted, and pretending otherwise is essentially telling a lie to those common people.
I also find it irritating when politicians brag about bills like "this will create 3000 American jobs." Seriously, that is not even a drop in the bucket.
I agree. I think that there are some things that were better in the past - mostly the defaults we had set in diets, exercise, and social interaction. Since we now have the option to be sedentary, eat processed food, and stay isolated, this can lead to a great deal of unnecessary unhappiness unless you make a conscious choice to do otherwise. And this choice can feel difficult to make, because so many other people have normalized an unhealthy way of life. But still, it is a choice, and any individual can choose to live differently if they want to.
"Things were better in the past"
No... you just spend too much time on the internet. And yes, that includes comparing everything to 1950s America. Of course, there are ebbs and flows, and things get worse for some people or groups of people sometimes. But on net, if you compare the present to the past over any substantial period of time, based on metrics that people generally find important like health, safety, free time, and freedom to choose how to live their lives, the present is wildly better than the past.
Taking 1950s America for example, since it is such a popular example, 1/3 of homes didn't have indoor plumbing. We don't even have to go back to medieval times and talk about how you probably wouldn't be a princess - we can just compare to the supposed golden age of one of the richest societies the world has ever seen, and you have a one in three chance of having to poop in a hole outside every day and heating your bathwater in a stock pot on the stove.
Really? You're asking what's 6x7? Didn't you learn that in elementary school?
Adding onto the other commenter - yes the electoral college skews votes towards less populous states. But state borders weren't drawn with this intent, so it isn't gerrymandering.
Wasn't that literally the purpose of grog? A mixture of beer and water used on ships to kill harmful bacteria that would grow in the ships' water stores over a long voyage?
And if people in the past knew how to make water safe to drink, then why was epidemiology invented when Londoners couldn't figure out that they should stop drinking poop water?
You just described hanging out with friends