I just think its probably not the same person. The profile picture does not look like him to begin with and I don’t think this whole interaction sounds like him.

was a nice article to share.

Funny how melanin could also be used for this kind of radiation and looking forward to what the scientists will find out in the future.

Protection for space travel would be nice and whatever other applications might pop up in the future.

I am sorry to hear that. There are quite a few mods that further modify the parry and dodge windows making them way more forgiving.

For the story alone I can totally recommend it and you still get quite engrossed in the scenery.

And I also never perfectly dodged or parried everything so maybe that helps as a reference point. Sometimes I really had to learn to expect what was coming.

I agree, I think in the context of the comic with „stoic and strong“ it does feel weird to say that they do not make you weak, because he is obviously struggling.

Like you I think the point should be more about generally building up to better deal with all our emotions - even unwanted ones - and be more comfortable while experiencing them.

But I also see how in the comic it‘s easier to say to a buddy that he is not weak to comfort him to open up and then later on circle back to his ideas of strength and stoicism. But I think we have to rethink standards and ideas about masculinity and emotions for sure.

I mean, I get that you don’t like how they talk on Lemmy about it, but the quote from the study even talks about how the surplus could be used for additional consumption and everything. Study is here

I think we all have different things we want in life and with such a big surplus there is room for most of us to regularly enjoy that. I do not believe that they argue that we will NEVER be able to enjoy different food. That is as you have mentioned not functional or good for people to work together and live together. Disregarding the many people with different cultures that have moved somewhere else.

I think the study more clearly argues that we can afford to take care of everyone on the world if we wanted to. That there is a viable way and that that way is not as you are implying necessarily a deprived space with tight margins. Because living is about more than slaving away like a 12th century peasant to accumulate more wealth for a king somewhere far off.

Sounds like a tricky question.

I would say that if my partner would basically do everything for me in housework I would feel uncomfortable if I was not also on some level giving back to the relationship. Not that I like traditional roles but I feel in those there was at least the assumption that both work, one at home and one for another boss.

In a scenario where someone really just does everything for you and there is nothing to contribute that would also feel grating and uncomfortable to me. Just hearing about a partner who would cozy you up for a while though sounds chill to me and something that has happened to me and I have enjoyed. Especially if it feels contextually appropriate: you having a rough patch and getting more support from them.

So when I first read it, thinking about my partner and me just chilling and me not having to do much of anything that did sound slightly tempting on some level as a fantasy.

Maybe that helps as a different perspective?

also the eyes moving to one side. First time I have ever read about this, thanks for sharing

uh interesting. I think I like the setup of the joke in this one more but it is basically the same joke yes.

Possibly, but I also honestly find it an interesting idea.

The way it is described it doesn’t sound like they recommend doing it with total strangers but have a conflict/discussion with a group that can chime in but is not focused on resolving the conflict but more processing it together. And honestly I think for some people that could be a good way to potentially learn and hone their way of speaking to each other.

I also really like the contra-culture idea they establish that conflict does not have to be uncontrollable and that we are responsible and accountable for our behaviour in conflict. So I think this could be an experience where you are able to air things that unsettle you while reaffirming that you bring it up because you care about the other person.

But I‘m sure this is not for everyone and is most likely a potentially energy intense way. I think the meme as well is more aimed in: I wanna butt in and say my piece without really having skin in the game.

Hmm okay I think I get your point but I don‘t know if I follow the premise that a narrow definition of rape is ultimately better for rape survivors/victims.

I think I would argue that especially in public discourse opening up what sexual harassment is and how we define rape allows more victims to step forward and share their experiences.

In the example for male rape survivors for example a common contention to not believe them is that they could physically overpower their abuser. And awareness work aims to show that even strong men can be forced and coerced. (The actor from Brooklyn 911 was an example for that discourse)

So that’s why I would not feel its a disservice if we call it rape because as the others have mentioned, it hinges a lot on the fact that we have learnt that the victim was dead at that time.

Just wanted to share my perspective but I feel I get yours a bit better now

Yes I get that. I‘m looking forward to reading the comment and article you have linked and thanks for the insightful perspective. I hope you have a lovely day

interesting, thanks for writing it down like this.

If you allow the random question, is this persistence of class between communes also the reason you shifted from anarchism to Marxism? Because I think you do make a persuasive point and would like to know what changed your trajectory/mind.

I mean yes sure couples have to communicate but relationship anarchy isn’t really about who does the dishes but if a relationship includes sharing finances, includes financially / emotionally caring for each other or if it is potentially a „purely“ sexual relationship. Or just a platonic relationship.

The anarchy is not meant in the same way as its political ideology counterpart but states that you do not adhere to established rules or hierarchies within traditional relationships.

Maybe as a relationship anarchist you want someone you only fuck from time to time but you also want to share finances but you don’t want emotional sharing. This would be an uncommon constellation that could be easier to make sense of using their concepts. You could also obviously get there with other means but likewise maybe this also generally just wouldn’t work/vibe with you - which is also fine.

I really just wanted to give people the chance to engage with potential tools to talk about their relationships differently and maybe that helps.

Either way connecting and communicating with people and partners is always complicated and you have to train it and keep the communication working. So yeah it might be more complicated but maybe thats why it might work for different folks.

I‘m not that deep in relationship anarchy and in a currently monogamous queer relationship.

I do think the difference lies in the traditionality you have touched upon in that you and your partner have a script / rough idea that has/is guiding aspects of your relationship and that relationship anarchist would want to explicitly frame/structure themselves in most of the relationships they engage in. This is more in the direction of: my romantic partner is also a partner I share finances with or plan to cohabitate with or think about offspring with etc.

I don’t think there has to be an inherent value judgment in this. Different people prefer different things so I think it always works out and either way you have to communicate with your partner in what works in your relationship. (Who does what housework, what do esch of you want out of the relationship, etc.)

I mean you can be heavily invested in a relationship as a relationship anarchist.

The anarchy part is that you do not take for granted how a relationship should be structured and that you are open to have very unique and consensually agreed upon aspects in your relationship.

If you want commitment and reliability and loyalty you can for sure ask for it and name it as something that is essential for your relationship and if they do not give it to you it might just be best to split ways.

Of course I understand that there will be people who weaponise relationship anarchy to just do whatever the fuck they want to and rationalise/justify their behaviour but I think the concept isn’t condemnable per sé. There are also people who weaponise therapy speak to gaslight and I wouldn’t want to generally talk bad about therapy.

Just wanted to give a counterpoint because I think engaging with relationship anarchy and for example looking at a smorgasbord can even help monogamous people to figure out what is important to them and what they want.

I think your comment reads quite combative.

I think with the context of the Meme, yes there are some people who call you and you just know its gonna be a huge annoying phone call that you should just avoid and text the person after because some people just wanna talk your ears off.

I dunno if we have to do the: omg millenials/gen alpha is too phone anxious thing.

And sure its called a mobile phone, but as an argument that feels somewhat pedantic nowadays. Primarily its a mobile internet connected computer nowadays I would say. I use the camera/ texting/ social media functions way more than the real phone capabilities. Maybe thats different for you but I don’t think it’s uncommon that its one of the lesser used functions.

Sure if people are too anxious to pick up the phone and it negatively impacts their life they should get help for it. I don’t think we should shame them in that case though. It feels to me like shaming depressed people when they cannot find the energy to shower, which I would similarly feel is inadequate input.

Thanks for sharing, it really did feel like a sketch out of the movie.

I guess I would also focus on the dog and the niece when they are more approachable and not as combative and so many people in your family are changing quite profoundly

I hope you have a lovely day without phone calls!

He is flirting with the alt-right. And some movements „dabble“ in nazi memorabilia to mention the most flagrant connections to it or his failure to even outright criticize Hitler.

I know that the word Nazi is really triggering but its also true in this case. He is not said to be a Nazi himself but flirting with them. Which is factual and not really discrediting per se.

If the only argument here is: Nazis can only be German and its a historical term that cannot ever be applied to other nations I think that belies how everyone consistently uses language in a not strict academic sense and even then there are academic papers linking him to Nazism and right ideology in general.

And your other insinuation of saying that „anyone who isnt working for a more just and equal society“ would be applicable to Trump, his campaign and the things he platforms falls flat if you look at what his recurring talking points are. Sure let’s use the word Nazi less bit of course in association with Trump it gets used for very clear, explicit parallels. But I don’t think you really care about that if you try to frame everything as tiny transgressions by people who are just not „fighting for a more just and equal society“. If Nazi is too strong a word, what would you propose? And is the use of it logically a valid reason to discredit an opinion? On an open source platform talking about people who have English as a second or third language?

yes I really liked it. Even the analysis/hypothesis that it really is the moment of „not getting pandered to“ that enrages that demographic. Any moment they do not feel like the target audience they take grave offense.

I honestly think that it’s totally fine to ask for citations and I also would have loved to see them. Furthermore I also really think that it was much more reasonable to ask the second person for the citation than the first one so I am in total agreement with you.

And I do really want to clarify that I was honestly just commenting on the doomy comment of: „a reflection of our times“ Because this really just felt more like an anchor effect hypothesis moment to me of being biased by the first data input however outrageous it may seem.

Even if you had casted doubt (which I again don’t think you did) that would’ve been fine and healthy I would argue. I love it when people ask for citations and then even read through them and discuss the limitations of it, I think that’s fucking awesomesauce and I’m glad people like you can read it and share their insights on it.

Long story short I was sharing another - to me more plausible - explanation of the vote distribution. Hope you have a lovely day and this kerfuffle did not discourage you from exploring and sharing the interest details of the world.

(god I should really learn to write more concise)