krellor @ krellor @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

253

Joined

2 yr. ago

Everyone is different, and life is path dependent. Some people don't struggle with difficult memories, and others have simply not lived an unpleasant enough life to have accrued the emotional scars.

However, being blatantly brusque in your description of others followed by "sorry if I offended" is the epitome of ringing hollow. At least be honest; you don't care if you offended others.

Not all thoughts are consciously summoned, wanted, or pleasant. The term intrusive thoughts is a good way to describe those thoughts we find unpleasant. Yes, they are natural and normal, and often how we grapple with and process experiences, but that doesn't make them unobtrusive.

Additionally, many people have intrusive recollections of upsetting events from the past. Intrusive thoughts is a good descriptor that helps avoid over using terms like flashbacks or PTSD.

Clarifying such things as intrusive helps destigmatize these thoughts for people who have them and feel the weight of social expectations, like new parents as in the comic. Feeling guilty about having these thoughts isn't healthy, and properly describing them as unwanted helps people process them. I don't see what is particularly objectionable or hard to understand about the term and why being more specific in the description of one thoughts is off-putting to you.

You're welcome, glad it was helpful!

Thank you! I wanted to touch on some additional points like those, but I am in my phone and already was hitting the character limit, so I'm glad you mentioned them.

Enjoy your weekend!

I hate to wade in but I see a lot of misinformation being posted.

The reality is both Israel and Palestinians are victims; victims of each other, their neighbors, and the world around them. You can make one side look better or worse depending on when you start the clock on the discussion.

When Israel was formed in 1948 there wasn't a Palestinian state, but rather a collection of towns with various ethnic populations including Jewish and Muslims peoples. The area was controlled by Britain in the time before WW2 under a mandate from the league of nations, the precursor to the UN.

In 1948 the UN set a border for Jewish and Palestinian states in the territory that is today known as Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. The Jewish peoples, some who could trace their ancestry in the area to biblical times, and others who settled the area as either a Zionist effort or fleeing the Holocaust, accepted the borders which were much smaller than today's Israel, because it meant they would finally have their own state and land.

The Arabs didn't accept the border for a variety of reasons, and the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia attacked the fledgling Jewish state.

Notably, the Palestinians didn't attack. Though there were tensions between the Jewish peoples and the Palestinians who felt the encroachment of Jewish settlers from Europe, the Palestinian cause was really created and coopted by their Muslim neighbors.

During the war Israel expanded their borders, 700,000 Palestinians were displaced while some were massacred. Some Palestinians fled the war, some were forced out, some left at the call of their Arab neighbors, and some left in fear of being massacred. The armistice that ended the war left Israel larger, Jordan in control of the West Bank, and Egypt in control of Gaza. Note, this was before the West began to provide military aid to Israel.

So the Israel narrative or myth is that they have the pure moral high ground where they win a war for the right to exist. The Palestinian narrative and myth is that they were all violently dispossessed by the Jews and are pure victims. To this day, children born in Palestinian refuge camps are taught about the village they are "from" which often doesn't exist and their family does 70 years ago. Though many were not forced out during the war, the narrative is they were all forced to leave by the Jewish army.

So you have these competing ideas passed down on both sides that are in conflict, and neither one quite right.

When you look at how Palestinians have been treated by their Arab neighbors you see how they have been abused further. For example, Jordan and Egypt could have made the West Bank and Gaza independent Palestinian states, but they didn't. They continued to occupy them, and ultimately lose control after going to war with Israel again in the six day war in 1967, which set the stage for many of the problems today.

Over the years these narratives in conflict have bred real world violence in a tit for tat escalation that spans decades. Israel continues its narrative that it is in a war for its right to exist, which is true, but also doesn't accept responsibility for worsening the situation at times over the years and human rights abuses such as the 24 documented displacements.

Palestinians continue to define themselves as a dispossessed people, teaching their children that they need to reclaim what they lost, while being used by their surrounding Arab religious state neighbors as a proxy battleground against Israel. Palestinians have refused offers to develop permanent housing for fear of would weaken their claim to being refugees, and really live in entrenched slums that they call refuge camps.

The recent events were caused by Hamas, fearing the normalization of Israel relationships and the fading of the Palestinians cause to retake lost land, attacking Israel. Then of course, you have Israels grossly disproportionate response and the horrors therein.

So really the situation is quite a mess, and made worse by people ignorant of the history rushing to support one side or the other. In reality, both sides are prisoners of their own history, and unlikely to set themselves free anytime soon.

If you want a short podcast that goes over this in more detail, I recommend "The Daily" podcast titled 1948, which was released this past November 3rd and interviews the NYT Israel correspondent from 1970.

Let me know if you have any follow up questions.

For everyone else who is blindly on one side or the other waiting to bait me into a never ending argument by selectively framing the situation: no thanks, I have a weekend to enjoy.

Have a great day!

I didn't see it on the article, but I would expect that returns/replacements for broken, defective, or misleading items will still be free. I'm guessing the problem is people using free returns when buyers remorse kicks in.

Not the person you asked, but I grew up in a rural blue collar area. Construction beats up your body, and even with the right PPE you are at high risk of injury from accident or simple repetitive stress injuries. The work is often exposed to the elements, on stressful timetables, with pressure to work long hours.

Some of the trades can be better, but many have the same issues I listed above. Lots of people in trades or construction feel 60 at 40 from beating their body up.

For the lay person:

It's like if you could see Twitter threads and Reddit posts on your Facebook in a single feed, and choose between them which set of rules, interfaces, and styles you prefer. Since everything shares content, it is easier for new sites to open which helps keep the user experience competitive.

My favorite was ghosts and goblins, beating it just to find out you have to beat it twice to actually win. That was rough one.

I remember the first time beating the dam level, only to get to the van and be absolutely confused about what to do next. Good times!

Awesome, I'll take a look!

And yet the Dems did piss the infrastructure bill and other legislation that wouldn't have happened. And control what gets to the floor, and doesn't vote for the Republican bills. If the Democrats and progressives want more progressive legislation they need to win more seats. But show me the progressive that can carry West Virginia?

What other Democrat could carry Manchin's state? It's better to have someone who votes with you some of the time rather than none of the time. If Manchin loses his seat it will shift the calculus for the Dems having a majority and their ability to select committee chairs, and choosing what legislation to bring to a vote.

I've had really bad luck lately with finding good Indian food. The last few times I tried the food was alright, but not particularly flavorful. I like spicy and even asked for the dishes spicy, and they were still fairly bland.

Fortunately I moved recently so I'm hopeful I can find a good place now.

I don't think you have anything to worry about. All this requires is that any models used by the government are tested for bias. Which is a good thing.

Go ask an early generation ai image generator to make pictures of people cleaning and it will give you a bunch of pictures of women. There are all sorts of examples of racial, sex, and religious biases in the models because of the data they were trained on.

Requiring the executive agencies to test for bias is a good thing.

Reading some of your replies really feels like this is one of those differences driven by an internal vs external locus of control. It seems like you feel that control of your life trajectory is outside of your direct control, and you began attributing all choices to some higher imperative. You mention depression, which seems bound up on this locus of control issue.

The problem is you are taking activities people suggest don't lead to the propagation of genes, and then you make a highly subjective argument, and then declare yourself correct as if this was a math or logic problem with axiomatically driven rule structures.

The reality is life allows multiple subjective takes on an issue, so unless you can begin to quantify the effect of something you argue the way social scientists do, your take isn't worth more than anyone else's. You aren't more right just because you read your own press release.

Now having said all of that I know some people who killed themselves just out of highschool. How did their urge/want to end it all help their genes propagate? I'm legitimately interested to see what mental contortions you have in store to explain this one.

Dude, no matter how you feel about the actions of Hamas and other violent groups, empathy for the children impacted by war and violence is a sign of basic humanity. Telling children to cry you a river is just sick.

I got into computers at a young age in the early 90s. You couldn't really do much without getting knowledgeable. I learned basic and then assembler to follow along with magazines that shipped game code for you to follow along with. I later went on to build my own 16 bit computer out of NAND gates, including ALU, wrote a rudimentary compiler, network stack, and OS, etc. Very primitive but functional. I really just wanted to figure out how it all worked through the full stack, and get my games working along the way.

I eventually learned more languages and launched a career in IT and moved through just about every role. Picked up a math degree along the way to help. Was a system programmer on an IBM zos mainframe using C, natural, and assembler. Was a.net developer for a while, an enterprise DBA, cloud and network engineer, and then eventually exited the technical career through management.

So I guess I just always was interested in how computers worked, and getting my games working. I left the technical roles one I felt I had figured out all that I really needed to and went on to other challenges. Still play games and tinker with my own projects though.

I don't blame AOC for student debt not being forgiven. I do blame Congress as a whole, and I find fault in Schumer, AOC, and others who shifted blame to Biden. Even at the time numerous independent legal experts had said that it would be unlikely to succeed through executive action, and so all Schumer and AOC did by publicly calling Biden out was fuel misplaced blame like the person I replied to. I think their energy could have been better spent drafting legislation and publicly calling on Congress to bring a vote to the floor, which I think are fair criticisms.

As far as I'm aware, Pelosi didn't go in front of the media and online and repeatedly tell the public that Biden could use an executive order. If she did, then I feel the same way about that as the others I listed, who I did see out in the media making those claims.