couldn’t agree what restaurant to call. My solution would be to order what I want, telling my partner to order what she wants. Why must we order from the same restaurant?
Otherwise you'd have to pay double the delivery fee or drive to two different places to pick up the orders, which might not be ready at the same time. There are advantages to cooperating on things.
She wanted to have lunch with another couple (double date), he said no, because he wanted a quiet weekend and suggested she goes alone with the couple. She started yelling about not doing things together.
But why must couples do everything together? Why is doing things separately not a good idea? He gets his peace and she gets to socialize.
If you aren't doing things together, that's a different sort of relationship than if you are. It's valid to want one or the other, but should probably be on the same page about it with your partner.
To me most of the draw of a relationship, romantic or otherwise, is the opportunity to work together to make both of your lives better, to have someone you trust to care how you feel and who has your back, and who you can do the same for them. Playing a role in someones life can be a satisfying responsibility to fulfill and worthwhile, but it should ideally be something you actively choose to be responsible for. It sounds like what you're struggling with is that because of your upbringing you have a hard time seeing that sort of responsibility as anything other than something that you get roped into due to circumstances, tradition, guilt and manipulation, but it doesn't have to be like that. Sometimes someone asking you for help is because they trust you and know you want to help, rather than trying to take advantage and control you.
That said, you don't have to want to work towards that either, it's also fine if you want a sort of relationship where you keep a lot of distance from each other, just find someone who also wants that instead of someone hoping for something else.
I just don't think that's something that's reasonable to by default expect people to be lying about, even if they are known not to be credible, and it definitely isn't a detail that's ever appropriate to omit entirely from coverage of someones death. If that's the attitude towards it then getting away with "suiciding" someone in terms of public opinion has a pretty low barrier for success.
directly and firmly state that, for the record, you are not suicidal and that if you should die, it was absolutely not suicide.
He did exactly what was suggested here. It was ignored and dismissed in all mainstream coverage of his death, and you are also dismissing it as a lie, with no specific evidence other than his apparently otherwise questionable character. It's naive to think that such a narrative wouldn't also be applied to anyone else trying to defend themselves in this way, of course it would be.
Does it really matter that much? I figure either way they're going to get you if they want and the media will treat it like a suicide regardless of how much you publicly telegraph what's going to happen ahead of time.
It seems like it could be legally problematic, but I'm not sure what the alternative would be other than accepting the privacy/autonomy nightmare of funneling all traffic through a government affiliated centralized service.
I'm all for trying to make it out, but for most people day trading in particular is a terrible idea and 90%+ lose money. I think most people would be better advised to just dump money into an index fund or other longer term investment and not think about it too much, at least that way you are betting on the market as a whole rather than your personal trading skills vs pros, which isn't likely to work out.
They have a point, but ultimately it's still a biased rationalization. The idea that life is impermanent and you can't defer doing what you care about with it is true, but it does bug me when this is posted that it's also an imagined, hostile caricature from the perspective of a character who sees people (in particular people who have found themselves in debt slavery to his organized crime group) as just worthless losers. That's its focus, as a putdown from that perspective; portraying a man who works a low paying job, can't get women, commits the sins of gambling and drinking. Unstated but implied is that this is about a failure of achievement that is at its core financial, that positions himself above them both by being rich and doing fucked up things that are by his logic "meaningful".
The OP comic is kind of an interesting contrast to that, making a similar point, but about a woman with a successful career, where that success might not hold much meaning.
There reaches a point with vaporware projects where it's like, actually release something or I don't care anymore, it doesn't deserve to keep getting press
honoring the wishes of what is currently my last surviving relative (who I still remain in contact with and love dearly). Not to mention whatever might be a part of any legal stuff pertaining to her will. (which I know hardly anything about and still makes me panicked just typing about)
Regardless of what you decide about the ethics of it, consider that ultimately it is your life, your decision, and there are other ways to invest money. It's really unlikely that the will is going to effectively prohibit you from doing something with it other than becoming a landlord, not sure that's even possible. If you really want to prioritize honoring their wishes you can, but in the end you are the one who is going to have to actually live the life you build for yourself, not them, and no one has a right to make that kind of decision except you. Use your own judgment about what future you want and don't feel guilty for acting on it.
chicken @ chicken @lemmy.dbzer0.com Posts 0Comments 1,231Joined 2 yr. ago
They also try to monitor everyone else in the world