That's fair. If you're used to not receiving emotional attention, then suddenly receiving it might be something so novel that you need to give it your blessing before accepting it. The relationships I've been in have generally defaulted for both parties to a sense of "I'm going to do what I think is best for you, so let me know if I'm ever wrong," rather than "Can I do this thing for you? Ok, good. How about this one?" But I've been lucky to have mutually caring relationships.
If this person has gotten used to people not having their best interests in mind, then maybe even their partner's good intentions need to be given consent just to show them that people can have good intentions. I do worry that, by being told what's happening, he'd associate candy with being stressed and get defensive whenever offered candy, but hopefully she's been doing it long enough to at least show him that it's an effective de-stressor coming from a place of love rather than manipulation.
I hope you find someone who cares for you as well. It took me a lot of time and effort to put myself out there before I found my wife, but I'm really glad I did.
It's not an experiment to react to someone's fear and trauma with kindness, even if you learned those skills through helping rehabilitate dogs. She's not doing this to try to figure out how he reacts to the stimulus of M&Ms under certain conditions, she's giving him candy when he's stressed because she knows it helps him calm down. That's just being a caring and attentive girlfriend.
They're wryly saying that when Trump inevitably ignores this latest of judicial orders, there will continue to be no consequences save for more angry reminders that he's not supposed to do that.
As an adult, I now celebrate the day after Halloween, when I can get to the grocery store right as it opens and grab several giant bags of candy on clearance.
They don't just want to choose not to think, because then they might have pangs of regret from making that choice. They want others to tell them that women aren't allowed to think, so that it's no longer their decision, and so it can't be their fault if it's a bad one.
And I'm sure at Easter dinner my whole family will still be saying "Thank god Trump's second term will be over in 4 years and things will go back to normal!" as if anyone in the government will actually be willing and able to prevent him from simply continuing on with his dictatorship. This cinches it for me - I'm convinced that we're not getting out of this without American Revolution 2.0.
First we got Link's Awakening, a Zelda game with some Mario stuff thrown in, and then we were supposed to get this, a Mario game with Zelda aspects. I wonder if they were trying to combine the two somehow.
Everyone already knows all the republicans supported it; anything under their jurisdiction is already a lost cause. What I want to know is how many people from the "left" party can't even keep their own votes on the right side of history. It's not news when villains are villains - it's news when the people who say they're here to fight back against the villains are caught supporting them, and it's important not to drown out that important detail among a bunch of already-known regressives. People need to see that the current democratic party isn't a viable defense against conservativism, and that we need to do something more to get things moving in the right direction again than simply trusting democrats to fix everything.
If by "we" you're referring to the American people as a whole, then no, no we don't. So many people I talk to are treating this like just another 4 years of republican shenanigans; I rarely find someone in real life who understands just how close we are to all-out war.
They're in a country full of angry people with guns who have been trained over generations to think that there's no need to use them - that protests will be enough because the only next logical step after that would be violence, and nobody wants that. But really, I don't have a lot of faith that most will actually use them - I know in my heart of hearts that I won't. I think we've been trained to have such faith in our loud bark that we're left completely unable to bite. There are a few individuals who have worked up the courage to take real action, but we'd need a lot more than that to scare the wealthy into playing fair. I hope I'm wrong, but every time I think about taking that next logical step as a result of all the inconsequential protests, I fail to even come close to having the courage to do so, and I don't think I the only one.
It's true that we evolved in response to an environment, but the actual genetic changes that allowed for that were not developed with purpose. They happened randomly, and the ones that happened to provide a benefit made those individuals more likely to have more kids that those with less beneficial random changes.
I mean, this is just normal resume building tactics taken to an extreme. The first thing I was taught when I was building my first resume was to focus on the most skillful tasks I handled while at work, rather than the most frequent. It doesn't matter that I only helped train a newbie once for a couple hours, my resume said that I trained and oversaw new hires. It doesn't matter that 99% of my job was sticking tags on clothes - few people care about that skill, so I didn't mention it on my resume at all.
Remember, there are 2 reasons why someone might say something. Either it's the truth, which makes no sense as you pointed out, or it's a convenient lie, which makes perfect sense for someone who benefits from maintaining the status quo while pretending to fight against it. It's well past the time to assume people are telling the truth until proven otherwise. It's time to just straight-up call a politician's lie a lie from the smell alone.
It was ruined for me when I was getting my masters in genetics and learned that "mitochondria" is plural, and the singular is "mitochondrion." So, it's either "the mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell" or "the mitochondrion is the powerhouse of the cell," and neither feel right.
I think some of those purple ones should instead be labeled "If you can find a way to get it to stick around long enough for you to lick, you'll win a posthumous Nobel prize."
I was lucky that my family had a Mac when I was a kid. I did all my stupid downloading of random .exe files from sketchy sites on a machine that couldn't run them, and by the time I got my own PC in high school, I knew a bit better.
I had my annual review last week, and they told me they base their new hire workload goals on the amount of work I do. I'm happy to do my part in bringing down expectations!
Signtist @ Signtist @lemm.ee Posts 1Comments 485Joined 2 yr. ago
That's fair. If you're used to not receiving emotional attention, then suddenly receiving it might be something so novel that you need to give it your blessing before accepting it. The relationships I've been in have generally defaulted for both parties to a sense of "I'm going to do what I think is best for you, so let me know if I'm ever wrong," rather than "Can I do this thing for you? Ok, good. How about this one?" But I've been lucky to have mutually caring relationships.
If this person has gotten used to people not having their best interests in mind, then maybe even their partner's good intentions need to be given consent just to show them that people can have good intentions. I do worry that, by being told what's happening, he'd associate candy with being stressed and get defensive whenever offered candy, but hopefully she's been doing it long enough to at least show him that it's an effective de-stressor coming from a place of love rather than manipulation.
I hope you find someone who cares for you as well. It took me a lot of time and effort to put myself out there before I found my wife, but I'm really glad I did.