Looking back I don’t see anything I wrote, that says they should move

This you?

I would talk to her about looking for someplace to live she does feel safe.

Gaslighting me in a thread about gaslighting… Brilliant

It’s a response to your second paragraph which is “she’s not gaslighting you and you should reward her abusive behaviour by moving to a nicer neighborhood”.

No, this is abuse. Being scared of where you live doesn’t justify abusing your partner. Missing someone’s text doesn’t justify this kind of behaviour. The silent treatment is abusive and not the way mature adults communicate with their partners. The fact that he calls the attention seeking follow up “the usual” also shows the extent of the problem, especially when it’s pretty clear she expects him to provide the “correct” response. This post has so many red flags I thought it was a communist party parade.

Oh shit France runs things WAY faster than us Canadians. Probably for the best. The longer the campaign is, the more politicians can use bullshit populist fearmongering. Good luck to the French for defeating the fascists… That just won in France for the EU elections…

She did encourage him, on purpose, because she thought he would be easy to beat. Your source completely supports that, and that was unethical and foolish of her.

However I can’t find any evidence that she or the DNC donated to him or his campaign.

Perhaps you can make a small adjustment to correct your comment to avoid the spread of misinformation!

Corporations can’t be victims of victim blaming

So you agree that they can be victims of victim blaming

That user that tagged you as “purposeful idiot” was fucking spot on.

A snap election isn’t instant lol. An election committee gets formed, a date is set a few months ahead, politicians register and campaign, polling stations are formed and staffed. It’s a lot of work. It’s like the US but faster and less predictable and therefore not 18 months nightmare of propaganda.

I think each Korea just sent the best of their culture!

No. They’re dumb. It’s scientifically proven at this point. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289609000051

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fenton-appeal-1.4397286

Only one cop was punished. His sentence was losing 60 paid vacation days, probably 2 years without vacation at his seniority.

“It is difficult for us to conceive how convictions for the mass arrests, found to be unlawful, of hundreds of individuals in contravention of their Charter rights are not at the more serious end of the spectrum of misconduct.”

The panel that sentenced him admits his behaviour was heinous, but gave him such a slap on the wrist.

He argued in court that what he did was fair and it’s unreasonable to expect him to have done better.

The people who were arrested and forced to stand outside in the rain without food or water for hours won a 16 million dollar class action settlement and had their records expunged. But it took nearly a decade because the police was trying to weasel out of it. A decade with a wrongful criminal record sets you back more than 16k/person.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/g20-toronto-police-regret-1.5767958

TL;DR: effective communication requires that the language part of the brain of both people map VERY closely. It’s no surprise autistic people and NTs don’t communicate well together, but communicate very well within their own groups. How much you need to adjust your communication depends mostly on how important it is to get your message across, which if you’re a teacher should be a lot. It’s your job to communicate effectively lol. Your teacher was shitty!

Honestly I’m mostly replying to the “I’m not reading that but I agree”. That made me chuckle. Like I could have had “Aurora_TheFirstLight sucks” in the middle of that and you’re all “It’s cool I agree lol”

Damn that’s a lot of people declaring that THEY’RE the ones who speak clearly and THE OTHERS only think they’re speaking clearly.

Brains are fairly unique to the individual. When you have an idea, this represents a unique neural activation pattern no one else has.

Being a social species, we often need to communicate these ideas to other people. This means we need to get that unique neural activation pattern into the other person’s brain. That’s where language comes in.

Language is a massive part of the brain that we work on our entire lives. The entire purpose of language is too make that part of our brain as close to identical as everyone else’s. This way we take our idea, convert it into a neural pattern in our language center, transfer that pattern using words and non-verbal communication, then the other person receives it hopefully without massive transmission loss. They’re now able to recreate the unique idea you have.

One of the defining features of autism is that the language part of the brain develops very differently in autistic people than neurotypicals. This means that neurotypicals can communicate well together. Autistic people can communicate well together. But communication between autists and NTs will be poor because of that difference.

Many people are arguing about who should change their communication to adapt to others. I don’t think this is a useful question because the answer is unique to the individual and is based entirely on need. If you’re an NT who needs to communicate to many people with autism, or have someone very close to you with autism, you will likely make an effort to build an autistic language map in your brain. If you’re autistic and need to communicate with NTs, you’ll likely build an NT language map in your brain. I can see these mapping strategies like using metaphors etc… in this very thread.

Unfortunately since autism is in the minority, there are more people in the latter group than the former. This means the pressure is felt by autistic people more than NTs. This is a natural consequence of the need to communicate in society, not an ethical dilemma. One natural consequence is that autistic people will prefer to have autistic friends to ease their communication burden.

Everyone accepts that there are people that they can’t communicate well with. People who speak a different language, people with a different culture, people who have a very different life experience, people whose brassica develop differently. All these groups will have a different language sector of the brain and communication will suffer. It’s not efficient for everyone to try to be able to communicate perfectly with everyone else. The goal is to be able to communicate very well with your friends and partners, communicate work concepts with colleagues, communicate basic concepts with most strangers, and avoid unintentionally making enemies with everyone else as best as you can. The onus is on each person to achieve theses goals for themselves.

There isn’t really a right or wrong in this situation.

I like what you’re saying and I agree with it fundamentally. I wish it is possible to have the majority of crops be direct to consumer. I KNOW everyone is happier when they have a real personal relationship with the products they consume. That’s even part of what marketing abuses when it anthropomorphises brands.

I’m personally pessimistic on that front though, I think it can’t happen in modern capitalism for two major reasons. Number one, I don’t think the majority of the population of Western nations, let alone the world, can tolerate even a moderate increase in food prices without creating massive instability. I know what the “middle men” jack up prices considerably on almost everything, but the staples: wheat and meat in my part of the world, simply cannot be sold cheaper by smaller operations than grocery store prices (in part due to the regulatory capture so prevalent in modern capitalism). Number two, of the people that CAN tolerate the increase, I don’t think modern capitalism would allow their profits to be undercut by a significant shift towards small producers selling direct to customers. They have a few tools that I just don’t think most people are prepared to live without like comfort and consistency. I can get plums, cauliflower, tomatoes, broccoli ANYTIME OF YEAR at reasonably consistent prices. The idea that people will have to pay more AND change to seasonal eating habits where they just can’t get certain things most of the year? I think we’re too far into the comfort of bourgeois decadence, excuse my communist language, to tolerate the change.

I will say I have enjoyed this discussion and I certainly agree that I mischaracterised you by initially latching onto a throwaway “ew bugs” comment.

Using sustainable practices “they only eat a little” is totally valid. The way we farm now… A pest outbreak will ravage a monoculture crop.

I know there are great alternatives, but they all have higher labour requirements. Modern capitalism can’t tolerate that. If we can find a better solution now we can mitigate the damage before we end capitalism. After that we can definitely switch to more labour intensive sustainable practices. I’m not an accelerationist so I’m not rushing to end the current world order before trying to make all the improvements we can.

It was a wild guess and I was hoping someone smarter than me would correct me ❤️

In my defense the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park came from wildly different eras so Carboniferous super bugs can still fit in!

I’m not fighting you. It’s just you’re acting as if the reason we research pesticides isn’t because we need it to protect our food source.

I’m not even saying that there isn’t some possible alternative, I’m just saying monoculture grains is how humanity gets most of its calories right now. It’s how we currently survive. That requires pesticides. These pesticides are far less damaging to the world than the current ones in use right now. It’s in the research phase too, so it’s not like we’re committing to this specific idea. Everyone knows there are pros and cons, the scientists doing the research do too. You’re not the first person to realise that this will trap all small insects. Just a reminder that our current solution kills all insects and this one is better. The fact it doesn’t harm bees is already a massive improvement.

Everyone should be welcome and encouraged to research any idea that’s better than our current ideas in any way. Any knowledge is good knowledge.

As for your preferred ideas? There are lots of ways to help be part of a future that includes what you feel is the best solution. That being said, none of them include being disingenuous about why we use pesticides in the first place. I don’t know why that was contentious to you. We don’t kill bugs because they’re gross, we kill them because they eat our food.

In the Jurassic period there were giant insects like dragonflies with 4ft wingspan. Turns out THIS is how we get to Jurassic park

It’s not because they’re gross, it’s because they eat our food. And we grow monocultures so it’s a perfect breeding ground for pests. Also if you read the article the new pesticide is physical and doesn’t harm large predatory insects.

Until then the dairy industry is going to keep using the regulation to its advantage whenever it can to keep others out of the market.

I don’t know what’s confusing.

1.A regulation was created to control what you can and can’t put in the product called “milk” for the good of the customer.

2.The dairy industry used the regulation that was built to restrain them to keep vegan milks out of the market dishonestly using the “for the good of the customer” argument.

3.If someone can fix the regulation to allow both well regulated milk and non dairy milks then it’ll put an end to this bullshit.

Where have I lost you? Just because 2 happened doesn’t mean 1 didn’t happen first. In fact 2 would have been a lot harder if there wasn’t regulation controlling the word milk in the first place.

I know it feels easy to armchair regulate but it’s not usually that easy. Like if you keep current milk regulations but then let people add a word before milk to escape the rules (to allow oat milk for example) then the dairy industry will pull shit like “pure milk” and “super milk” to escape the rules. It’s a cat and mouse game as soon as you start adding exceptions.

Milk is one of the longest regulated foods because the dairy industry misbehaves so much. The industrialisation of milk was so bad it caused tuberculosis outbreaks among other things.

I’m not saying there isn’t a good solution, there are always many good solutions possible. All I’m saying is not to forget that there is a reason the word milk was regulated for so long. Whatever exception is carved out for almond milk has to be well constructed enough not to weaken the current milk standards, yet broad enough to allow for any variety of plant based milk and that’s going to take some serious expertise. Enshrining plant based milks in a well thought out regulation is going to be the best way to stop this whole “only animal milk is milk” stuff. Until then the dairy industry is going to keep using the regulation to its advantage whenever it can to keep others out of the market.