I'm a Muslim and I celebrate Christmas, as do many Muslims I know, both Sunni and Shia (most Shia I know are Lebanese and AFAIK they all have Christmas trees, or at the very least Christmas lights, some even in their offices). Yes, Muslims believe in Jesus, but especially in the western world that's not even a requirement, plenty of atheists, Jews, and so on also have Christmas trees and their children get visits from Santa. I'm pretty positive AC was just being satirical, but these days... Poe's law and all... Plus also something-something about if you don't like the code, don't run it, or some shit.
I've seen online, but never met in person, a handful anti-Christmas Muslims, not because they don't believe in Jesus, but they have an idea of "Muslims should have a culture of their own" which is a bafflingly stupid and confusing statement because Muslims are exceptionally different from Bosnia to Albania to Lebanon to Turkey to Saudi Arabia to India to Indonesia.... not to mention the vast differences between Sunni, Shia, Sufi, and every other sub-group.
Yes it's been going on for a long ass time and it's no less eye rolling today than it was when I finally registered an account around 14 years ago.... and for the years before that when I was just a lurker.
I think that's a gross oversimplification of the problem, because not everyone wants help, and often times in my experience people can be in total denial about needing it at all, or just too ashamed regardless.
Not only that if people are overdosing on medications they were prescribed in rising numbers too, legalisation doesn't really make much of a difference with those deaths. I think there's a much larger problem here than just saying: legalise it and people will know they need help when they do, actually get help because there isn't shame or anything else involved (alcoholism, perfectly legal, tons of alcoholics and people too ashamed to still get help), and drugs made in FDA approved labs will become less deadly.
This on top of the fact getting help can also cost a lot of money, especially in the rural areas where it's rising, there aren't tons of community drug rehabilitation programs.
I don't have any answers, but legalising it and (with the simple answer, seemingly implying) washing your hands of all of the deep seeded social problems in America isn't a proper approach.
I've never had caffeine withdrawl, there have been a lot of times where I had to stop or just stopped for whatever reason. I've wondered if this has something to do with how caffeine interacts with ADHD. Caffeine itself, like many people with ADHD, doesn't keep me awake as much as it helps me focus.
A local grocery store sells caffeine pills for 90 for $2.50. And you underestimate how much caffeine I consume and how cheap I am. Plus my primary thought process was that perhaps I was taking too much because pills are easier to take than consuming X amount of liquid so that would slow me down.
That's why I said "at least to me", dingus. I don't care if other people like it, in fact my attempt to conform to other tastes shows that I realise that at least being able tolerate it means I have more choices. And in the immortal words for George Costanza: I don't drink wine, I drink Pepsi.
Coffee is pretty gross no matter what you put in it, at least to me, I've even tried to train myself to tolerate it to save money in the office, after a month of trying (the longest time span) I still find it horrible. So, I drink soda, take caffeine pills. I used to have caffeinated mints but the place that sold them I go to no longer has them, I can get them online but I don't care enough.
The "cool factor" thing is nonsense, because tobacco products *have* been legal, regulated, and taxed, and yet evidently there's still somehow teen smoking and smoking is still cool despite it being regulated by "the man." Hell the article itself is about regulating them even more because the huge current regulations have evidently done little to stop teens from smoking who want to. Let's think about your logic though, if regulated it looses its cool factor, but cigarettes have always been pretty cool. Also your own example of alcohol, well alcohol is regulated, legal, and taxed, and yet there's still underage drinking and while it was an even bigger problem in the 70s and 80s (well after the end of prohibition, btw)... drinking is still considered cool by a lot of young people. So... I guess cool factor is bullshit. Maybe something else goes into people wanting to smoke, drink, or do drugs other than "hey, it's illegal, cool!" because if that was enough then we should have far more drug users than we do drinkers and cigarette smokers, and yet we don't.
That sounds like a raise in my tax dollars, perhaps there's a way to outsource that to the prison system? At least that's the thinking I was trying to reflect in my post.
There's another side to that coin, the anti-psychiatry movement (vague name, potentially inaccurate, maybe better termed psychiatry reform movement) and their promoters such as R. D. Laing caused a huge rise in the political correctness of mental illness so that now people with depression are treated on equal footing as people with schizophrenia. The rise in respectfulness for the mentally ill is a good side effect, the other side is that the rise in concept of "not a danger to himself or others at this exact moment so totally safe always" and near-total out patient treatment has lead to the closure of vast amounts of mental health facilities. And while that's good for all the supposed countless political prisoners (not that it didn't happen at all) who were used as a reason as to why they're dangerous facilities, the ultimate end result is now prisons are full of mentally ill people who get essentially no treatment at all.
Governments benefited more from the closures than any political prisoner or mentally ill person could: mental health facilities and asylums are bad because they waste money and only imprison the innocent and sane and the actual insane can be treated as out patients from underfunded clinics, so the state can save tons of money and all the rest and seemingly now vast majority of the mentally ill can live on the streets or sit in prison. Meanwhile more than a few mass shooters were considered "not a danger to himself or others" since they weren't in the middle of killing anyone at that exact moment, evidently.
I'm not sure it's moving goal posts when someone else just calls my argument ignorant and horrifyingly incorrect for pointing out misanthropy within the environmental movement and meanwhile admits those people exist, but saying I must be watching too much right-wing propaganda to make such an argument and thus can easily dismiss it -- I notice you don't point out the logical fallacies with that, but then again, logical fallacies only matter when you disagree I guess.
It'd be moving goal posts if I were trying to defeat the argument with a new one rather than just pointing out it's ridiculous and hypocritical and since no counter-argument was made other than "you're wrong because you say X even though X is true, but just a little bit" that makes it to where I have no real room to say anything. I'm not sure what in the hell I could possibly do to defeat the counter argument when all it is saying is what I said, in different grammar, and meanwhile saying i'm wrong.
But fine, *there are and aren't* misanthropic people in environmentalism and *you are or aren't ignorant* and horrifyingly incorrect for pointing it out so long as you are on the right side of being in denial about it, and depending on the side you're on you're either moving goal posts or are making iron clad and reasoned arguments... and if you dare point it out, too much right-wing propaganda must be the issue. Though I'm sure you can dredge up some supposed other logical fallacy and accuse me of that even though it doesn't apply.
So I'm wildly ignorant because of far too much right-wing propaganda and yet you readily admit there are people like that, even if they are a tiny minority? So I say people like that exist and they are bad and you say they are bad too, and therefore I'm ignorant and "horrifyingly incorrect." Do they exist or not? It doesn't matter if they're a minority, they still exist
Did you ever consider that blindly ignoring people who could be bad for your movement and literally pretending they don't exist (except when you admit they do) because they are a tiny minority and criticising people who bring them up as being ignorant and highly incorrect probably makes look ridiculous?
It's interesting because I didn't indict all environmentalists and went out of my way to mention good ones with a conscience, but you sure want to pretend I like I'm mouthing off like Rush Limbaugh. Spoken like a true new-lefty though, getting mad and agreeing at the same time, and of course assuming that anyone who would dare say anything you disagree with (though end up agreeing with ironically, but with a qualifier it isn't everyone, even though I explicitly said it wasn't) reads a lot of right wing propaganda, because of course only people on the right are critical of nutjobs (your word, not mine).
This is why the new left is a joke, it's all zero sum and everyone has to hug and totally agree or they are on the far right. Hippie bullshit.
At risk of being modded a troll, and that's not my intent, a lot of radical environmentalists are extremely anti-human and would prefer vast numbers of humans die rather than mosquitoes, many of the non-radical ones are simply indifferent to human suffering in favour of fear and paranoia. I honestly feel bad for genuinely decent environmentalists who are also fine with being human and caring for others, it must be really lonely.
Yet more stuff to do to cost me time and money that won't be reimbursed no matter what, the point still stands it isn't just money being taken out that's put back in just because you point out a fraudulent charge.
Not always, I recently had $155 charged to my card from a Kohl's in Iowa. I've never been to Iowa, I never shop at Kohls, and it turns out that a lot of other people did also get theirs charged when I googled the ident/charge name/whatever for the specific charge. This was a company card for my business that is only used for business purposes, and actually very rarely at that.
So when trying to deal with my bank they initially told me that I had to wait for it to post, then after that they told me there was no proof any fraud had happened. I tried multiple times with multiple "security" people, they basically just blamed me and one even said that I "must have bought something online such as a washing machine and don't remember", because Kohl's sells washing machines I guess. After a week of trying to deal with it, I just gave up, I was too busy with work and a new baby to switch banks.
Then it happened again! After more online "investigation" on my part, it turned out that evidently a lot of people put card numbers on white plastic or something (even though I have chip and pin which this same bank told me would make everything more secure -- I never believed that), go to Kohl's and use their Kohl's cash system in order to steal money. This it was a little less, around $115, and yet again I went through the same thing, but this time they gave me my money back.
I've switched banks since then I'm still out not only around $150 and the lost time I spent dealing with it that I could have been programming or doing anything productive. So while I hate the card companies, it doesn't mean that money magically appears back into your account or it isn't a fucking pain in the ass and have other indirect impacts.
I don't think it's necessarily an issue of just anti-feminists conflating them all, because in recent years I've seen them all referred to as "sexual assault" or just "assault" from time to time, primarily on especially left-leaning or "SJW" (even though I hate that term) blogs and so forth.
I don't disagree with anything else you said, I just wanted to point out that I think the "everything has to be extreme!" aspect of our culture has gone everywhere and some people just jump the gun and refer to even sexual harassment as "assault." Almost certainly these are from young people who lack real world experience and are probably just ignorant, but nevertheless...
I'm not sure why this is modded down, probably because it's AC, but it's actually true. There's goofy lobbies in the US which make outrageous claims that irradiation of food makes it taste bad, destroys it, makes it radioactive, etc. Some irradiation still happens, but people are indeed irrationally afraid of it like water fluoridation.
Interestingly though, Europe doesn't irradiate *enough* foods because they still kill a lot of people from time to time with preventable foodborne illness, but I think that has a lot to do with the widespread belief (rising in the US too) of what is natural is good, even if it is potentially deadly, and anything based on science is wrong.
John Stossel, even though I'm not really aligned with many of his political/economic beliefs, did a pretty good little "documentary" about food irradiation: see on YouTube
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a Muslim and I celebrate Christmas, as do many Muslims I know, both Sunni and Shia (most Shia I know are Lebanese and AFAIK they all have Christmas trees, or at the very least Christmas lights, some even in their offices). Yes, Muslims believe in Jesus, but especially in the western world that's not even a requirement, plenty of atheists, Jews, and so on also have Christmas trees and their children get visits from Santa. I'm pretty positive AC was just being satirical, but these days... Poe's law and all... Plus also something-something about if you don't like the code, don't run it, or some shit.
I've seen online, but never met in person, a handful anti-Christmas Muslims, not because they don't believe in Jesus, but they have an idea of "Muslims should have a culture of their own" which is a bafflingly stupid and confusing statement because Muslims are exceptionally different from Bosnia to Albania to Lebanon to Turkey to Saudi Arabia to India to Indonesia.... not to mention the vast differences between Sunni, Shia, Sufi, and every other sub-group.
Yes it's been going on for a long ass time and it's no less eye rolling today than it was when I finally registered an account around 14 years ago.... and for the years before that when I was just a lurker.
I knew my son looked a lot like the mailman
I think that's a gross oversimplification of the problem, because not everyone wants help, and often times in my experience people can be in total denial about needing it at all, or just too ashamed regardless.
Not only that if people are overdosing on medications they were prescribed in rising numbers too, legalisation doesn't really make much of a difference with those deaths. I think there's a much larger problem here than just saying: legalise it and people will know they need help when they do, actually get help because there isn't shame or anything else involved (alcoholism, perfectly legal, tons of alcoholics and people too ashamed to still get help), and drugs made in FDA approved labs will become less deadly.
This on top of the fact getting help can also cost a lot of money, especially in the rural areas where it's rising, there aren't tons of community drug rehabilitation programs.
I don't have any answers, but legalising it and (with the simple answer, seemingly implying) washing your hands of all of the deep seeded social problems in America isn't a proper approach.
Are you sure? My wife tells me that when I have sex with her, it makes her sick.
Another Earth, a 2011 movie, came to mind for me. That movie seemed much longer than it really was.
I don't know, I think we may be better off if they *were* actually sent to Mars
Man, miles is so much shorter than kilometres. Why use kilometres if miles is so much closer?
I've never had caffeine withdrawl, there have been a lot of times where I had to stop or just stopped for whatever reason. I've wondered if this has something to do with how caffeine interacts with ADHD. Caffeine itself, like many people with ADHD, doesn't keep me awake as much as it helps me focus.
A local grocery store sells caffeine pills for 90 for $2.50. And you underestimate how much caffeine I consume and how cheap I am. Plus my primary thought process was that perhaps I was taking too much because pills are easier to take than consuming X amount of liquid so that would slow me down.
That's why I said "at least to me", dingus. I don't care if other people like it, in fact my attempt to conform to other tastes shows that I realise that at least being able tolerate it means I have more choices. And in the immortal words for George Costanza: I don't drink wine, I drink Pepsi.
Coffee is pretty gross no matter what you put in it, at least to me, I've even tried to train myself to tolerate it to save money in the office, after a month of trying (the longest time span) I still find it horrible. So, I drink soda, take caffeine pills. I used to have caffeinated mints but the place that sold them I go to no longer has them, I can get them online but I don't care enough.
The "cool factor" thing is nonsense, because tobacco products *have* been legal, regulated, and taxed, and yet evidently there's still somehow teen smoking and smoking is still cool despite it being regulated by "the man." Hell the article itself is about regulating them even more because the huge current regulations have evidently done little to stop teens from smoking who want to. Let's think about your logic though, if regulated it looses its cool factor, but cigarettes have always been pretty cool. Also your own example of alcohol, well alcohol is regulated, legal, and taxed, and yet there's still underage drinking and while it was an even bigger problem in the 70s and 80s (well after the end of prohibition, btw)... drinking is still considered cool by a lot of young people. So... I guess cool factor is bullshit. Maybe something else goes into people wanting to smoke, drink, or do drugs other than "hey, it's illegal, cool!" because if that was enough then we should have far more drug users than we do drinkers and cigarette smokers, and yet we don't.
Fuck yeah
That sounds like a raise in my tax dollars, perhaps there's a way to outsource that to the prison system? At least that's the thinking I was trying to reflect in my post.
There's another side to that coin, the anti-psychiatry movement (vague name, potentially inaccurate, maybe better termed psychiatry reform movement) and their promoters such as R. D. Laing caused a huge rise in the political correctness of mental illness so that now people with depression are treated on equal footing as people with schizophrenia. The rise in respectfulness for the mentally ill is a good side effect, the other side is that the rise in concept of "not a danger to himself or others at this exact moment so totally safe always" and near-total out patient treatment has lead to the closure of vast amounts of mental health facilities. And while that's good for all the supposed countless political prisoners (not that it didn't happen at all) who were used as a reason as to why they're dangerous facilities, the ultimate end result is now prisons are full of mentally ill people who get essentially no treatment at all.
Governments benefited more from the closures than any political prisoner or mentally ill person could: mental health facilities and asylums are bad because they waste money and only imprison the innocent and sane and the actual insane can be treated as out patients from underfunded clinics, so the state can save tons of money and all the rest and seemingly now vast majority of the mentally ill can live on the streets or sit in prison. Meanwhile more than a few mass shooters were considered "not a danger to himself or others" since they weren't in the middle of killing anyone at that exact moment, evidently.
I'm not sure it's moving goal posts when someone else just calls my argument ignorant and horrifyingly incorrect for pointing out misanthropy within the environmental movement and meanwhile admits those people exist, but saying I must be watching too much right-wing propaganda to make such an argument and thus can easily dismiss it -- I notice you don't point out the logical fallacies with that, but then again, logical fallacies only matter when you disagree I guess.
It'd be moving goal posts if I were trying to defeat the argument with a new one rather than just pointing out it's ridiculous and hypocritical and since no counter-argument was made other than "you're wrong because you say X even though X is true, but just a little bit" that makes it to where I have no real room to say anything. I'm not sure what in the hell I could possibly do to defeat the counter argument when all it is saying is what I said, in different grammar, and meanwhile saying i'm wrong.
But fine, *there are and aren't* misanthropic people in environmentalism and *you are or aren't ignorant* and horrifyingly incorrect for pointing it out so long as you are on the right side of being in denial about it, and depending on the side you're on you're either moving goal posts or are making iron clad and reasoned arguments... and if you dare point it out, too much right-wing propaganda must be the issue. Though I'm sure you can dredge up some supposed other logical fallacy and accuse me of that even though it doesn't apply.
Touché.
So I'm wildly ignorant because of far too much right-wing propaganda and yet you readily admit there are people like that, even if they are a tiny minority? So I say people like that exist and they are bad and you say they are bad too, and therefore I'm ignorant and "horrifyingly incorrect." Do they exist or not? It doesn't matter if they're a minority, they still exist
Did you ever consider that blindly ignoring people who could be bad for your movement and literally pretending they don't exist (except when you admit they do) because they are a tiny minority and criticising people who bring them up as being ignorant and highly incorrect probably makes look ridiculous?
It's interesting because I didn't indict all environmentalists and went out of my way to mention good ones with a conscience, but you sure want to pretend I like I'm mouthing off like Rush Limbaugh. Spoken like a true new-lefty though, getting mad and agreeing at the same time, and of course assuming that anyone who would dare say anything you disagree with (though end up agreeing with ironically, but with a qualifier it isn't everyone, even though I explicitly said it wasn't) reads a lot of right wing propaganda, because of course only people on the right are critical of nutjobs (your word, not mine).
This is why the new left is a joke, it's all zero sum and everyone has to hug and totally agree or they are on the far right. Hippie bullshit.
At risk of being modded a troll, and that's not my intent, a lot of radical environmentalists are extremely anti-human and would prefer vast numbers of humans die rather than mosquitoes, many of the non-radical ones are simply indifferent to human suffering in favour of fear and paranoia. I honestly feel bad for genuinely decent environmentalists who are also fine with being human and caring for others, it must be really lonely.
Does it work 24/7 or just on sunny days?
Yet more stuff to do to cost me time and money that won't be reimbursed no matter what, the point still stands it isn't just money being taken out that's put back in just because you point out a fraudulent charge.
Not always, I recently had $155 charged to my card from a Kohl's in Iowa. I've never been to Iowa, I never shop at Kohls, and it turns out that a lot of other people did also get theirs charged when I googled the ident/charge name/whatever for the specific charge. This was a company card for my business that is only used for business purposes, and actually very rarely at that.
So when trying to deal with my bank they initially told me that I had to wait for it to post, then after that they told me there was no proof any fraud had happened. I tried multiple times with multiple "security" people, they basically just blamed me and one even said that I "must have bought something online such as a washing machine and don't remember", because Kohl's sells washing machines I guess. After a week of trying to deal with it, I just gave up, I was too busy with work and a new baby to switch banks.
Then it happened again! After more online "investigation" on my part, it turned out that evidently a lot of people put card numbers on white plastic or something (even though I have chip and pin which this same bank told me would make everything more secure -- I never believed that), go to Kohl's and use their Kohl's cash system in order to steal money. This it was a little less, around $115, and yet again I went through the same thing, but this time they gave me my money back.
I've switched banks since then I'm still out not only around $150 and the lost time I spent dealing with it that I could have been programming or doing anything productive. So while I hate the card companies, it doesn't mean that money magically appears back into your account or it isn't a fucking pain in the ass and have other indirect impacts.
I don't think it's necessarily an issue of just anti-feminists conflating them all, because in recent years I've seen them all referred to as "sexual assault" or just "assault" from time to time, primarily on especially left-leaning or "SJW" (even though I hate that term) blogs and so forth.
I don't disagree with anything else you said, I just wanted to point out that I think the "everything has to be extreme!" aspect of our culture has gone everywhere and some people just jump the gun and refer to even sexual harassment as "assault." Almost certainly these are from young people who lack real world experience and are probably just ignorant, but nevertheless...
I'm not sure why this is modded down, probably because it's AC, but it's actually true. There's goofy lobbies in the US which make outrageous claims that irradiation of food makes it taste bad, destroys it, makes it radioactive, etc. Some irradiation still happens, but people are indeed irrationally afraid of it like water fluoridation.
Interestingly though, Europe doesn't irradiate *enough* foods because they still kill a lot of people from time to time with preventable foodborne illness, but I think that has a lot to do with the widespread belief (rising in the US too) of what is natural is good, even if it is potentially deadly, and anything based on science is wrong.
John Stossel, even though I'm not really aligned with many of his political/economic beliefs, did a pretty good little "documentary" about food irradiation: see on YouTube