Glad I now have friends that are entirely in agreement that waiting is pointless.
I would highly disagree it signifying you as anything special, it's a random ass social norm that serves no real purpose. But yes as I've said I'm well aware how it makes some ppl feel so I wait when eating with anyone I don't know well. And sure it's not hard now, which is the part where I mentioned this kind of thing mostly happened when I was a kid.
Honestly that reaction is just proving my point lol
Yeah, these opinion polls really should be more taken as a desire to move closer (as the article says). I doubt the people voting actually know everything that joining the EU would entail, but it's still valid as a general "getting closer to the EU".
Usually when it's things that are "socially expected" but don't make sense to me in that moment. Like being asked to wait with eating food until everyone has some (still don't really get it, but "it's a social norm and people will feel bad" is sufficient for adult me since it's really nbd. As a kid no one even explained that far though, just that it'a a thing you do because you do.).
In general as an adult its been pretty rare since I've learned it's not worth the effort (and whatever if it makes people happy then cool), and if I really don't wanna do something I consider pointless (like wearing a suit - which I'd first have to buy - to a wedding in 30° heat as someone who is already very uncomfortable in shorts and t shirt in 22°) people are more likely to respect it because they can't really force me anymore.
I do think the more common one (that still happens a bunch) is when providing the why, or more generally when providing extra information. It seems to me people often assume I'm overly criticizing when I do that. Like "can you add this thing to the sheet I think it'd be helpful when <3 sentences of the context in which I think it's good to have>" tends to get worse reactions than "can you add this thing to the sheet I think it'd be helpful".
So same as the food thing, maybe it's more about wanting far more detailed explanations than about wanting one at all. But to me the less detailed one often doesn't feel like a real explanation, moreso a justification.
Yea I think if my parents did this I'd instantly have lost all trust in them after it came off (well at least if they didnt tell me right after that they were joking). I never was quite that sensitive to dirt on me, but in general what apparently worked best is just explaining the why, which is probably pretty common for autistic kids.
Anyway I just wanted to say as someone whos also on the spectrum I appreciate you actually respecting your sons issues as valid instead of thinking the reaction is unreasonable and he should suck it up, which is sadly all too common.
(Which isn't to say that the panel isn't funny, messing with kids a bit is totally fine, just need to know them well enough to not actually hurt them. Same as adults really.)
Adhd in particular is a very "everyone can relate, only people with adhd have their lives crippled by it" thing. To some degree this applies to many mental disorders (e.g. everyone has some anxiety).
The need to know why is clearly not a normal thing or I wouldnt have had the frequent experience of people getting mad at me for demanding the why or, which is still utterly confusing to me, for explaining the why when asking someone to do something.
Yeah, these days when I read anything about antisemitic crime I always have to check if it'a actually people being racist or if someone just said israel bad. And of course israel doing their genocide is also driving up actual antisemitic crimes, because plenty of people think that israel=all jews, and understandably people are angry so they look for a "deserving" target. Which israel is also not helping with since their constant cries of antisemitism are implying exactly that.
And in reality it's not even all israelis (not like most people living there these days chose it), and while far too many seem to support the genocide, they're also under heavy propaganda.
The hypothesis kind of seems like selection bias to me. It seems more likely to me that in order for life to flourish as it has on earth, it has to (by pure chance) create a self regulating system, as otherwise it will eventually die off. What's interesting (and I hadnt thought about prior to reading the wikipedia article) to me is that it seems possible that the current rapid temperature rise will lead to some organism(s) we don't know or think about multiplying like crazy, and that has some form of cooling effect due to the organism's emissions or w/e. Industrialized humans appear to be the most extreme (in the sense of rapid, persistent change) climate event to happen to this planet since it has had life, but at the very least we're not the first time something fucked up the climate. Maybe we'll just get lucky after all.
For gender dysphoria there have been studies suggesting that prenatal hormone exposure plays a role. Many also experience dysphoria specifically about their genitals, so it's likely about more than just social gender constructs (probably also depends on the individual though), with at least some contributing factors already decided at birth.
But yea, both gender and sexuality are very complex and there are bound to be environmental factors for both.
I was wondering which part about them makes them dangerous or fucked up, given they're from australia. Thanks for providing the answer lol
I never even thought it was that deep (idk if in other countries ppl go over it in school or something, I first heard of it online) so I never really understood how people are relating it to any economic system. All it's saying to me is that one bad actor can be enough to ruin something for everyone - as far as I'm concerned it's just prisoners' dilemma in a larger group. So we need some way of enforcing that, if a shared ressource is vulnerable to singular bad actors (which isn't all of them, e.g. some people abusing welfare doesn't suddenly skyrocket costs), it won't be abused.
Edit: just realized I forgot whether tragedy of the commons was about some few fucking up the pasture for everyone, or everyone slightly overusing it. The latter is ofc a bit different, but "ah I can cheat the system a little, I need it after all" isn't an uncommon sentiment. That one usually just means you need a bit of a buffer, though, because most people won't grossly abuse something. (And of course, it's still quite independent of economic systems - regional software pricing for example is ultimately a capitalist thing to sell more, and yet would fall under this as it's usually possible to get these prices from other regions.)
Ehh, I do think people not voting are also responsible (or well, given what I know about US voting only the ones that really had the choice). They actively said "I don't care if the racist shithead trying his best to emulate hitler will be president". If you choose not to vote in a democracy you're saying you're fine with any outcome.
I don't think the individual responsibilty there is huge by any means - I've also long held the opinion that the average person in nazi germany (and any similar country) only had a very small part of the blame if they simply did nothing, because people have all sorts of shit to deal with. But that doesn't absolve them of all responsibility either. And at least in sane countries, voting is such a tiny bit of effort that not doing so is hard to excuse (but again, from what I know that's not always the case in murica).
Then they can accept that I won't do whatever thing they want me to do, because I don't exist to serve them?