I haven't had any friendships end abruptly that I'm aware of. But many friendships where I eventually realised I was the only one making an effort to maintain the friendship, and subsequently stopped bothering.
I am genuinely confused as to whether you are continuing to use the confederate flag as an analogy for "New Harry Potter [YTS].mkv" or if you somehow misinterpreted my comment as a defence of confederate-flag-having, given that the following quote:
There are people who liked the confederacy before you
would quite possibly not apply to Harry Potter. I'm going to have to assume the latter is a possibility. (I don't like Harry Potter, actually, but I was in target demographic when the first book was written, so it's entirely possible that I could have been one of the first fans.)
The existence of the confederacy was predicated on the maintenance of chattel slavery, and the memorialisation of its flags and leaders is inextricably linked to the effort to continue to subjugation of black people in the south of the US, and has been for as long as anyone has been alive. That makes it a hate symbol, and thus the having of a confederate flag is, prima facie, sus af.
Harry Potter... isn't that. For twenty full years Harry Potter was just upper class British wish-fulfilment slop until Rowling went off her rocker. Is it upsetting to me, a British trans woman, that HP continues to be fucking everywhere? Sure. But at the end of the day, pirating HP does less measurable harm to me than e.g. simply using twitter does, so I'm not going to end a friendship over it.
I don't think this is quite the case. There is no one alive who could possibly have formed an attachment to the confederate flag before it became a bad thing, but the same is not true of HP.
I think you can continue to enjoy things you already own - if you can - so long as you do it quietly, and I think that more or less applies to piracy as well.
You can still lose your seat by being a bit weird or off-putting. The problem is that a large amount of people don't find bigotry and corruption to be weird and off-putting.
I understand what you mean, and I'd agree that its presence in the acronym might be apt, but I think I take issue mostly with the characterisation of it as a toxic ideology by the post title.
The self-described "rationalist community" I'd certainly agree is mostly toxic, as is the "skeptic community". Unfortunately, they both came to be defined by the worst people in them. (The doomsday cultists and the bigots, respectively, mostly.) But I don't think that makes rationalism and skepticism toxic ideologies, just as I don't think the existence of TERFs and "girl boss feminists" makes feminism a toxic ideology.
That isn't what socialism is, but it is however exactly what Jesus told people to do. And yet she - a Christian - seems to hold the idea in contempt. Curious.
I've been diagnosed with autism and inattentive ADHD, and it's increasingly looking like this kind of executive dysfunction is because of the autism in my case, because I'm currently going through titration and all the meds have achieved so far is that I'm not starting the thing more furiously than before.
It might be allowed here, but it is also literally illegal in many places, so it might not be wise to do it here, where there will be a permanent record of it.
Counterpoint: He was definitely not the perfect choice for Jonathan Harker in Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula.
I love the guy and I agree he's good at the roles he sticks to these days, but he kinda ruined that film. (In much the same way that Sofia Coppola ruined The Godfather 3, actually. Why does Francis Ford Coppola keep getting away with this?)
This is straight up misinformation. The study you cited specifically says JEFCA continues to rate aspartame as safe with a fairly high daily intake, and IARC says there is limited evidence (i.e. basically no evidence of an acceptable standard) for carcinogenicity. It is classified as group 2B "possibly carcinogenic", because there is no such thing as "not carcinogenic". For reference:
People are free to drink the drinks that are worse for you, but given that the state foots the bill for the consequences of that, it's not unreasonable to ask that you pay more to do so, just as we do for tobacco and alcohol.
Not as many people were chronically online back then.
Aight. I put on my robe and wizard hat.
I haven't had any friendships end abruptly that I'm aware of. But many friendships where I eventually realised I was the only one making an effort to maintain the friendship, and subsequently stopped bothering.
I am genuinely confused as to whether you are continuing to use the confederate flag as an analogy for "New Harry Potter [YTS].mkv" or if you somehow misinterpreted my comment as a defence of confederate-flag-having, given that the following quote:
would quite possibly not apply to Harry Potter. I'm going to have to assume the latter is a possibility. (I don't like Harry Potter, actually, but I was in target demographic when the first book was written, so it's entirely possible that I could have been one of the first fans.)
The existence of the confederacy was predicated on the maintenance of chattel slavery, and the memorialisation of its flags and leaders is inextricably linked to the effort to continue to subjugation of black people in the south of the US, and has been for as long as anyone has been alive. That makes it a hate symbol, and thus the having of a confederate flag is, prima facie, sus af.
Harry Potter... isn't that. For twenty full years Harry Potter was just upper class British wish-fulfilment slop until Rowling went off her rocker. Is it upsetting to me, a British trans woman, that HP continues to be fucking everywhere? Sure. But at the end of the day, pirating HP does less measurable harm to me than e.g. simply using twitter does, so I'm not going to end a friendship over it.
I don't think this is quite the case. There is no one alive who could possibly have formed an attachment to the confederate flag before it became a bad thing, but the same is not true of HP.
I think you can continue to enjoy things you already own - if you can - so long as you do it quietly, and I think that more or less applies to piracy as well.
You can still lose your seat by being a bit weird or off-putting. The problem is that a large amount of people don't find bigotry and corruption to be weird and off-putting.
I understand what you mean, and I'd agree that its presence in the acronym might be apt, but I think I take issue mostly with the characterisation of it as a toxic ideology by the post title.
The self-described "rationalist community" I'd certainly agree is mostly toxic, as is the "skeptic community". Unfortunately, they both came to be defined by the worst people in them. (The doomsday cultists and the bigots, respectively, mostly.) But I don't think that makes rationalism and skepticism toxic ideologies, just as I don't think the existence of TERFs and "girl boss feminists" makes feminism a toxic ideology.
What's wrong with rationalism? Just because LessWrong is full of tossers doesn't mean that rationalism and empiricism aren't good, actually.
But Nigel is part of the in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, so it's fine, actually.
That isn't what socialism is, but it is however exactly what Jesus told people to do. And yet she - a Christian - seems to hold the idea in contempt. Curious.
Alas.
I've been diagnosed with autism and inattentive ADHD, and it's increasingly looking like this kind of executive dysfunction is because of the autism in my case, because I'm currently going through titration and all the meds have achieved so far is that I'm not starting the thing more furiously than before.
What does that have to do with anything? My points are:
It might be allowed here, but it is also literally illegal in many places, so it might not be wise to do it here, where there will be a permanent record of it.
Pretty much every study ends with "more study is needed". It's rare for a study of this type to be conclusive.
Coppola is certainly a problem.
Counterpoint: He was definitely not the perfect choice for Jonathan Harker in Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula.
I love the guy and I agree he's good at the roles he sticks to these days, but he kinda ruined that film. (In much the same way that Sofia Coppola ruined The Godfather 3, actually. Why does Francis Ford Coppola keep getting away with this?)
Kal-ElCaptPretentious, NO!This is straight up misinformation. The study you cited specifically says JEFCA continues to rate aspartame as safe with a fairly high daily intake, and IARC says there is limited evidence (i.e. basically no evidence of an acceptable standard) for carcinogenicity. It is classified as group 2B "possibly carcinogenic", because there is no such thing as "not carcinogenic". For reference:
There is also very little evidence aspartame affects blood glucose. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831325000857
People are free to drink the drinks that are worse for you, but given that the state foots the bill for the consequences of that, it's not unreasonable to ask that you pay more to do so, just as we do for tobacco and alcohol.
Party politics do not define left-wing and right-wing politics.
Almost literally the definition of left-wing politics.