My partners bring a lot to our relationships. I find it a lot harder to understand what they see in me.
My sense is that he is talking about the modal relationship in our society, that is mono, and in which my understanding is that people often (I would say at least 10% of the time?) do in fact have the "trading up" nature. That being the case, I think it's better for the participants in a relationship to be aware of that, and at what threshold to expect it? Having a moderately awkward discussion early on seems better than the heartbreak later.
This is coming from a very ask / tell culture perspective. I'm autistic enough (diagnosed, not slang / common use) that guess culture / relationships as imperfect information games is a distinctly negative experience. I don't find any "magic" in not considering bad outcomes or pretending that potential futures don't exist (the "happily ever after" expectation) or in leaving things unsaid.
Ah, the last section. Not incredibly relevant to my post?
On the whole I don't really model an average of the polycule as a general thing. If dating someone I'm not currently would make me happier I talk to my partners about the possibility of a relationship. Thus far this has never gone in an either / or direction; it doing so would be a significant reduction in expected happiness.
Unrelatedly, that paragraph drove my autocorrect / suggester absolutely stupid. It kept trying to shove "def" into the last sentence, and suggesting other nonsense.
Also, I'd guess that stupid people are more likely to actually uncritically worship him, while smart people are more likely to put up a facade of doing so to get something from him, a mask which eventually slips or conflicts with them getting what they really want, at which point they get thrown under the bus.
Being poly makes this a non-issue. In the case that one of my partners meets someone else they want to date at least as much as me, they do. This seems to lead to greater overall happiness.
I know for a fact that Eliezer is open to dating poly people, although I don't know if he is himself poly or just poly compatible.
If they chew open mouthed and are not amenable to change that is a straight up deal breaker, sorry not sorry, my misophonia doesn't leave room to compromise on that.
You might get some value from Stephen Baxter's Manifold series; while they aren't central to what you're asking for they definitely deal with humanity coping with a hostile universe. Heinlein wrote a couple of short stories set on a generation ship, although I can't bring the titles to mind. Accelerando takes place in many manufactured settings, rarely earth like (past the first major part). Brin and Benford's Heart of the Comet may also point in the direction you want.
And what happens in that case? A lot of people sat out or voted third party in 2016, we got the annoying orange in office, and our courts are now fucked for years to decades. Now there's Project 2025 to look forward to if we let the "day one dictator" back in office. Say, you wouldn't happen to be a trump supporter disingenuously pretending to be on the left so as to depress voter turnout as an effort to help him get back in, would you? Because if not, you might want change your behavior, because it's indistinguishable from that case.
Really, those deaths were all dependent on Joe Biden? That's pretty wild, because from what I hear his admin has been trying to get Israel to not do a shitload of war crimes, but since we don't actually own Israel as a client state, they can do pretty much what they want to.
Good to know that he personally ordered the killings, and directed the Israeli troops, that everything that happened is all him. It's impressive how well he runs the entire planet for a senile guy, huh?
Yeah, at the rate idiots are migrating to, I don't think that's an effective choice. Better to run like your ass is on fire and your hair is catching before they can kill you with the stupid.
Right. It was their jurisdiction to decide if he was an insurrectionist per the amendment. They did, he is. Federal crimes is a different case. Just like the recent defamation case ruled he was a sexual assaulter. Wasn't a criminal case, didn't carry the risk of jail time, did have consequences.
The one being relitigated here before the SC. Lowest court ruled that he was an insurrectionist, second tier ruled that president is in fact an office and that the oath for it applies.
Okay but that already happened. There's another case determining the part about whether he goes to jail for it, but that he is an insurrectionist per the amendment is already resolved.
HopeOfTheGunblade @ HopeOfTheGunblade @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 525Joined 2 yr. ago
My partners bring a lot to our relationships. I find it a lot harder to understand what they see in me.
My sense is that he is talking about the modal relationship in our society, that is mono, and in which my understanding is that people often (I would say at least 10% of the time?) do in fact have the "trading up" nature. That being the case, I think it's better for the participants in a relationship to be aware of that, and at what threshold to expect it? Having a moderately awkward discussion early on seems better than the heartbreak later.
This is coming from a very ask / tell culture perspective. I'm autistic enough (diagnosed, not slang / common use) that guess culture / relationships as imperfect information games is a distinctly negative experience. I don't find any "magic" in not considering bad outcomes or pretending that potential futures don't exist (the "happily ever after" expectation) or in leaving things unsaid.