I think this as well, though I have no formal training in psychology. My perspective comes from a lifelong interest in learning across fields and from having several family members who struggled with mental health, often dismissed as hysterical, crazy, over-emotional, or immature. Decades later, many of them received diagnoses of comorbid autism and CPTSD. I believe that within the next 5–10 years, assuming the DSM can be inured against political editorialization, autism diagnoses will be further refined and the spectrum will become more granular and specific.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 103
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 103
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
You are making a mistake that many sincere believers have made throughout history. You assume your faith is the singular, correct one, and that outsiders only need to open their hearts to see the “one true path.” What often goes unnoticed is that there has never been one true religion. You believe yours is correct because that is what faith requires. But history shows us that as soon as a faith gathers enough followers, disagreements arise. Some argue that leaders have misinterpreted the sacred texts, or that local customs conflict with established rituals. Whatever the reason, division follows. A religion grows, it fractures, sects emerge, and each insists it is the sole guardian of truth. Repeat this pattern over generations, and what began as unity splinters into dozens of sects, often hostile to one another.
Religion does what many of its adherents claim it does not: it changes. It bends, adapts, and evolves in response to pressure and environment. It speciates.
So let me ask you, as one who seeks to understand: if I were to study your holy book and choose Islam, which path should I walk? Should I follow Sunni, risking alienating Shia? If I found myself drawn to the Wahhabi or the Druze? Would these choices lead to peace and enlightenment or would they create yet another division? And if I sought to share my newfound belief with those raised differently, would they welcome my unity, or view me as another intruder cloaking sameness as love and peace?
This is why I, and many others, argue for pluralism. There can never be a single “true way,” for as long as people are individuals, there will always be differences in interpretation, values, and belief. History shows that tribalism, insularity, and suspicion of the unfamiliar are constants of human nature. The only way forward is not to cling to unity under nation or creed, but to accept each other as we are. Only by setting aside the conceit of a universal faith can we begin to overcome the divisions that have defined us.
I relate to this. I didn’t have many people I could rely on growing up, though I didn’t recognize it at the time. It left me with a lot of doubt about myself and about others. I often wonder who I might’ve been if genuine human connection had come more naturally, if I hadn’t learned to see myself in such a harsh light.
Right? I saw the meme, chuckled because I relate, but then I saw those bricks. Immediately looked up local gardening and hardware supply store to see if they have them in stock. This is EXACTLY what I need for my gardens.
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-Tnew wordA-R-T-I-S-TSpells BULLSHIT ARTIST.I say again, BULLSHIT ARTIST.
This is a great article that breaks down land use.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture
44% of habitable land is used for human agriculture. Most of that is used for livestock. One thousand years ago, only 4% of habitable land was used for human agriculture. Humans are the leading cause of habitat loss, which has lead to the fastest decline in biodiversity and ecological stability in history. Modern agriculture is one of the largest contributors to our climate and chemical problems, too.
I also have a stuffed beanbag frog/toad called "Fleagle" from when I was a toddler and I keep it in my nightstand. It's the only thing I still have from back then and I feel that same way.
What you're describing isn't really a failure of the education system. It's a reflection of the average American mindset. I was born in the US and grew up in the public school system. I loved math and science, and while I struggled with the rules of grammar, I still loved reading. I have always had a love of learning new things.
But most people aren’t like that. Not just in America, but across the world. A true love of learning is rare, and I think that’s because learning is hard. It requires humility, effort, and the being able to admit that one might be wrong. It means questioning long held beliefs and sometimes changing parts of yourself completely. That’s a deeply uncomfortable prospect and many people avoid it.
I think most people fall sleep while leaning on the third tier of Maslow’s pyramid (belonging and social identity.) The next level, where self-reflection and self-actualization begins, is hard to climb because it means hanging question marks on their long-held ideas and beliefs. They choose the safety of clinging to comfort and routine.
The current controversy over dismantling the US Department of Education is a complex issue that can’t be fully unpacked in a short reply on the internet. But in my view, what’s driving the American zeitgeist toward authoritarianism and anti-intellectualism is this resistance to growth and change. Internalizing new ideas means re-evaluating what you’ve always believed. For many, that feels like a threat. And instead of rising to meet the challenge, they'd rather pull everything down to their level, where they feel safe.
But, at least for me, the climb is worth it. Continuing to learn means accepting discomfort. It means growing past who you were in order to become someone better. It’s how we find purpose, empathy, and a deeper understanding of what it means to be alive.
Between all the microplastics, digital babysitting, and the department of education, the US had to dumb down its toys or risk alienating the target market. Regarding the lower quality chocolate, they've begun adding crayons directly to the mix so the children grow to become better marine recruits.
obligatory /s
The spacecraft uses radioisotope thermoelectric generators. It converts the heat generated by radioactive decay of plutonium into electricity. Engineers have been able to keep it working all this time by selectively powering down unused systems.
Copper cables are easier to reuse or sell as scrap due to the intrinsic value of the metal value and simple structure. Fiber optic cables are harder to reuse because they require precise handling, expensive connectors, and special training and equipment to splice together properly. Unless thieves steal pre-terminated fiber and handle it with extreme care or take entire spools with a buyer ready, fiber is essentially worthless to them since it can't be melted down and reused like copper.
I feel this. There was one time where I was playing metal over my speakers, but I was the only one in the office and I was not playing it loudly. After a while a security guard was doing rounds and asked me "what the hell" I was listening to. "Cattle Decapitation," I said, and they wrinkled their nose like someone shat in the trashcan and went on about how they can't how anyone would like "that stuff" -- I shrugged and said me neither and got back to my work.
I get the Tesla hate, I'm also not a fan of Musk and his antics, but can you share a source that says Tesla are inherently worse in crashes than other vehicles? The NHTSA gives overall 5-star safety ratings to Teslas, the highest score possible; the leader of the NHTSA is notoriously anti-Tesla (because of Musk's antics), and is on record saying that she wants to reign him and the company in (and rightfully so).
From this article: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/18/business/why-do-people-keep-crashing-teslas/index.html
The Highway Loss Data Institute, a US-based organization funded by the insurance industry, has not found higher crash rates for Tesla vehicles or other EVs more broadly based on overall insurance claims. Teslas do tend to have higher claim costs, though, according to the HLDI.
The article goes on to say that research indicates that the likely cause of a higher rate of EV crashes is drivers 1) not being accustomed to the differences between EV and ICE vehicle handling, and 2) EVs overall having more speed and power than ICE vehicles.
there is a long-established connection between horsepower and the frequency and amount of insurance claims. Fast cars hit things more often and they hit them harder, leading to more – and more severe – crashes. Added to this, EVs lack the usual engine sounds that go along with rapid acceleration and high speeds, so it’s conceivable drivers are less aware of how fast they’re going.
I'm interested in learning more about how EV crashes seem to be worse.
deleted by creator
If only; that would be some tasty irony for a theology degree-holding judge
The purpose of prison ought to be reconciliation and rehabilitation, not revenge or forced contrition. Many prisoners do feel remorse for their crimes, but unfortunately recidivism is so high (in America) because our socioeconomic and judicial systems are tooled to undermine a parolee's attempts to reintegrate into society, setting them up for failure.
Only in extreme circumstances, i.e. truly sociopathic criminals, should sentences that remove all hope of reintegration or release be issued. True sociopaths are incapable of feeling remorse, no matter how long or under whatever conditions they are kept. They do understand the weight and impact their crimes had on their victims, but they do not care. No amount of coercion will change that. In these fringe cases, I'd argue that giving them the choice between lifelong sequestration or self-inflicted suicide is ostensibly the best solution for everyone.
Ah, a classic. ALF truly is timeless.
- JumpLocked
They're Never Happy
This is just my personal experience, but I think it reflects a larger issue. Younger people were not 'too inconvenienced to actually go out and vote'; they wanted to support the party that they felt aligned most with their values, only to be ignored and betrayed in favor of the DNC's neoliberal matriarch.
Back in 2016, a group of us, mostly young people, caucused for Bernie Sanders. We had a strong turnout, with more people in our group than for any other candidate. The next largest group was for Hillary Clinton.
The people running the caucus seemed to have their own agenda. They told those supporting other candidates that their choice was "nonviable" and that they needed to switch to a "viable" candidate. Then, they physically ushered them to stand with the Hillary group while they [the staffers] "figured things out". Many of the attendees were first-time caucus-goers, so they didn't know any better and assumed the staffers were just being helpful by directing them.
For those of us who had caucused before, it was clear what was happening: the staffers were trying to inflate Hillary’s numbers. When we tried to speak up, we were told not to interfere or risk being removed.
It was obvious to us that the DNC was working against Bernie, ensuring the nomination went to their chosen candidate. Even Trump acknowledged that Bernie would have been a tougher opponent to run against.
Always delighted to spot another Boy Hits Car fan in the wild.
I mean, it is technically more accurate, but holy moly it feels so much worse.