erin (she/her) @ erin @lemmy.blahaj.zone

TTRPG enthusiast and lifelong DM. Very gay 🏳️‍🌈.

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

185

Joined

2 yr. ago

If you could look at a 6 year old and call them "born bad" for any level of mistake, it would make you an asshole. Why would you treat your child self like that?

No action a 6 year old takes is indicative of anything but their immediate environment. If you did something "terrible" when you were 6, maybe think about what that says about who was raising you, and why you've been made to think that it's "terrible." You desperately need to work through your childhood trauma with a professional.

Would you treat a random 6 year old how you're treating yourself? Why or why not?

Try not to take it all personally. It's a public forum, and no one here knows each other. They are just trying to be helpful. You will have more success if you assume people aren't being mean. There is no need to delete your account. Learning the social rules for an internet space is difficult, especially when it isn't your first language. Take your time and don't be so hard on yourself. Your contributions will be appreciated, even if they aren't perfect English. Have a good day.

There's a big difference between the weed shop I can walk to down the corner and the nearest safe use site/casino. I think people should be free to engage in whatever recreational activity they choose to, and the existence of addiction doesn't give the government the right to infringe on those freedoms. Safe use sites and social programs can exist without a semi-dystopian puritan system. I don't understand why addiction is so huge a problem that it requires such insane overreach. Without capitalist exploitation, addiction wouldn't be monetized. A different form of government and legalization do a far better job at managing addiction than creating a black market with draconian laws.

A drug casino doesn't solve those problems though. Better social services for addicts can. Addiction is impossible to eradicate, all you can do is provide good social services for addicts and recovery programs (which aren't judgemental and Christian). Requiring transportation to go get and use drugs is the same thing as criminalizing it for many people.

Neither does making a drug house that people need transportation to get to. That's the same as criminalizing it for many people.

I feel like you have issues with the way capitalism takes advantage of people's vices and you blamed half of it on the vices. If it wasn't exploited, and drugs weren't criminalized, with normal and healthy social standards taught instead of total abstinence creating an attractive taboo, none of that would be an issue.

Excellent question, but I have no idea. She tears the medicine labels off for some reason so I'll ask her when she gets home and edit with more info. It's a capsule and a tiny pill, taken morning and night respectively, if that means anything to you.

Edit: Phentermine and topiramate

My parents and my fiancee have gotten on an equivalent of Ozempic specifically for weight loss and covered by insurance. It seems to be easier now than it was, because if my fiancee wasn't covered we absolutely couldn't afford it.

Is this true? I thought with things like danger to oneself or others they're mandated reporters.

It's just an x frontend that correctly embeds lol

I wouldn't say either. Sex is way more intimate than just hugging. I'd say it's like "making out" but better. It's lots of fun, and I don't care about the societal norms restricting it between romantic partners. Pregnancy isn't a risk for me, and I'm very careful to avoid STDs. I haven't had sex with someone without a recent STD panel, and I use protection when necessary. My fiancee feels the same way, so I have sex with my friends all the time

girlcockx.com

For context I guess, here's my views on the list you posted, as someone who is very much not religious and dated plenty before finding my fiancee:

• Marriage might be awesome for some, but it's also not for everyone, and there are far too many bad marriages that could've been good casual relationships
• Standards are definitely good to have, but I guarantee mine are very different than the average Catholic
• No shame in being single. Better to be single than in a toxic relationship just for the sake of a relationship.
• I probably couldn't see myself marrying a religious person, but if their beliefs don't infringe on other's rights then I guess they can do them.
• Sex is just sex, cohabitation is convenient, cheaper, and pleasant. I've never been married and I've lived more of my adult life with a roommate or partner than not. I also don't believe sex needs to be confined within the boundaries of a relationship either, and I have sex with people that aren't my fiancee, both with and without her, though that's definitely uncommon and always done with the full consent of all parties.
• Dating could be for finding a future spouse. It could also just be for fun, or for a casual relationship, or a long term relationship with no intent to marry.
• Relatively wide variety in how long people date before marriage, if ever. I never planned on it for years, but I met my fiancee and changed my mind. We dated for a year before getting engaged.
• Normal to date in highschool.

Obviously this is only my perspective. No judgement, to each their own. Other than the views on polyamory (though more accurately, just sex. Open relationship? I don't have a label for it), these opinions seem very common among the average dating population. My sample may be skewed since I'm bisexual and over half my relationships have been gay.

Intent does matter, which means if someone continues "adhering to a cultural norm" after being asked to stop, their intent is now malicious. They are willfully disrespectful.

You shouldn't speak on the trans experience if you don't understand it, because you're way off-base. No one should be forced to tolerate the intolerant. If someone calls me something I don't like, I correct them. I'm not ascribing malice, but I am asking to be respected. After that point, if they continue to do it intentionally, they're an asshole and I see no reason to engage with them whatsoever. If your authentic self requires disrespecting others, you're probably not worth engaging with. This is just the paradox of tolerance again.

If you get someone's name wrong, and they correct you, you're an asshole if you continue calling them the wrong name. If you unknowingly call someone a slur, and you continue to use it after being corrected, you're an asshole. The same is true for pronouns, nicknames, adjectives, etc. You don't get to pick and choose what's disrespectful to someone else, and that means you might disagree.

Example: I'm an atheist. I find no issue with cursing god, joking about religion, etc. If a friend of mine told me that they're religious, and that it makes them uncomfortable when I do so, it would be a dick move for me to continue. I don't have to agree with them, but choosing not to respect them because I believe differently makes me an asshole. If that's a line I refuse to respect, then I should remove myself and not be around that person.

This is just victim blaming. Replace "dipshit" with a slur. This is literally you arguing the paradox of tolerance. The post isn't saying to ascribe malice. If someone calls me something I don't like, I ask them not to. I'm not saying they did something wrong. I'm asking politely for them to respect a boundary. If they continue to do it intentionally, they're an asshole. Your boundary can't be "I'm allowed to call you whatever I want." That's intolerant, and there is no reason we should be forced to tolerate the intolerant.

Unless you are a serious believer in the paradox of tolerance, and that you must tolerate everyone regardless of how they treat you in return, there is no way you can actually believe your own argument.

What are the odds these "disagreements" are actually just transphobia wearing a mask? Plenty of us disagree with Ada. We're still here.

Wait until you find out where fish and dolphins poop!

Would love to. I'm too poor.

I don't see it, as it seems like you are in fact arguing that tools are neutral. Giving counter examples isn't the same thing as a strawman, it's challenging your argument. Did you mean a different part of their argument?