I didn’t think for even a moment that it would be that simple, thank you so much!

Sorry, what? Are you saying that this comment about the holocaust makes the Nazis look… better?

Have they actually got something in the pipeline.

Tough fucking luck. If healthcare is private in the US, it’s none of their business, the state doesn’t get a say.

Who’s trying to trick you into eating a sugar substitute?

Plus the reporting on it.

At a certain point, people start saying things like “X is supposed to be bad now, but give it 5 years and it’ll probably be healthy again!” or “they say you’re not supposed to do Y anymore…”.

Because, of course, most people get their information from news sources who are always trying to find the next superfood or poison that we’ve all been consuming for hundreds of years. And often, many of the things were taught when we’re younger are no longer considered correct, or at least fully correct, anymore.

So at a point people just get tired, ignore all of it, and just do whatever they were going to do anyway, because from their perspective, scientists can’t make their mind up anyway.

Not exclusively though. For many the fact that there a scary sounding chemical called MSG in their food is enough. Lots of people are obsessive about ‘additives’ and assume they are all bad.

I’ve started shooting myself with BBs, I’m working my way up to pellets, then. .22, probably going to stop before 50BMG, but before long, I will be unstoppable!

I’ve used this for distilling too, when people start talking about methanol. Even with the worst distiller in the world, you’d have to drink something crazy like 10L before it would kill you.

Obviously by that point you’d be dead with alcohol poisoning. But saying “you can safely drink 14 cans of coke a day before the carcinogenic effects of aspartame become an issue” is completely valid, and not the same as saying “drinking 14 cans of coke a day is a healthy way to live”.

Hm, I’ve been on it for about 6 months now which has made me doubt it. I will continue on this lower dose and see if it helps!

I don’t really do any specific exercise. I work quite a physical job, although these days I sometimes spend all day at a desk, but I’m usually on my feet all day, lifting heavy things. Perhaps doing more office work and not doing exercise to compensate could be a big part of this.

What kind of stuff do you do? I’m quite limited as to what I could do at home due to hours and noise, I’d default to something like press-ups. I could do something more substantial in the warehouse when everyone else has gone home, though! I don’t know anything about how much or what kind of exercise is required to satisfy my amygdala, but I’ll do some research!

Yeah, revenge procrastination is definitely big for me, I’ll often only get the boring shit finished quite late in the day, then think ‘but I haven’t had any chill time yet!’ and spend a few hours gaming or something. This is my usual issue, which I generally manage okay with. Usually when I hit the pillow, I’m asleep pretty fast, but recently I’m just in bed lying there, completely alert.

That’s usually worked 100% for me. Either listening to an audiobook, or listening to a genre of video on Youtube I can only describe as “long-form space and quantum physics shit that I don’t understand but find weirdly soothing”.

Usually works great, but I just can’t seem to switch off, if anything, it can actually start adding to the discomfort. Weird really, maybe I need to find something that fills the same gap, but is different.

Thanks, appreciate it! Yes, definitely ping-pong between good and bad, you have a very similar outlook to me, in terms of having phases of good and bad and trying to make the good ones last!

I have an active job, but I think some kind of other exercise would be beneficial. Unfortunately whatever I do would need to be quiet, and preferably not involve trying to sneak in and out without setting my parents’ dog off! I was just thinking pushups or similar.

I hope you find the tools you need too, sounds like medication may help you, although I found it doesn’t help with all the new obsessions!

Can someone fill me in on wtf is going on with drag in the US?

I’m from the UK, drag is like our longest running joke, and families go to pantomimes all the time. Recently theres been a more direct association with the LGBT community in the popular understanding of it. I’d say that most people’s view on drag here is:

• not necessarily an LGBT thing, though it very often is
• kinda traditional
• can be funny, or just a fun performance
• pretty lighthearted
• not expected to be overtly sexual by default, depends on context

Some of the stuff I see out of the US is bizzare. I realise that the weirder stuff is always going to be amplified in the news, and people are not necessarily trying to show the full context in photos. But I’ve seen shit like

• rightoids getting so worked up that the pickets outside resemble the Gaza Strip or, as I’m reliabily told, the average us abortion clinic
• performances in weird places like libraries
• people watching a clearly sexual show in dive bars with their kids in tow that look like they’re starting at a painting in a gallery pondering the meaning of nothingness and looking way out of place

Like, wtf? Drag isn’t the problem, it’s the weird-ass way that people seem to be responding to it. Go to a show if you think you might enjoy it, read up on the performance or use context ques to understand what kind of drag performance it’s going to be. Certainly don’t go for political reasons and ruin the fun for performers who are just trying to have a good time. But equally, don’t plan shows that are meant to provoke a reaction for political reasons, for the same reason.

And why the right wingers care so much if fucking beyond me. Imagine having enough free time to consider that important enough to spend your precious free time protesting it rather than doing literally anything else.

Just chill, it’s a fucking stage show. It’s like the whole toilet thing again, just hysterics over something inconcequential. I’m trans and fabulous as fuck and don’t seem to consider these issues nearly as important than a middle-aged cishet blue collar dude from Texas who may never have met a single trans person or encountered anything like this outside of the Internet.

Is only fun show, why you heff to be mad?

I don’t think there’s a problem with people using Sync, I access Lemmy mostly through Windows!

People are happy about sync because they’re going to be able to use a UI they like, are familiar with, and has been refined over a really long period of time. It’s just a frontend, I think it’s way more important that the foundation you choose to build a platform on is open-source and can’t be pulled out from under you. If people prefer accessing through Sync, Chrome, or whatever else, it’s not really an issue as there’s always other options if any of them go sour.

I fucking love open source, seeing the rapid advancements in 3D printing, robotics, prosthetics and a host of other technologies as people build on each others’ ideas is amazing. The fact that a dude can use a brain-computer interface and machine learning to control a fucking exoskeleton he built in his residential house in his free time is like witnessing the future. But at the same time, also using closed-source software is not inherently a problem, and is often unavoidable.

And yes, it’s insane that people have to pay for access to information that they paid for. The fact that I have to pay money to see the standards of how to wire my home safely, that was drawn up with public money, is pure insanity!

They say Moscow is the Third Rome, and what’s more Roman than declaring victory and going home?

I guess a lot of it must be the belief that things could be better, that a country, organisation, etc is actually capable of so much more, but is holding back, and it just needs someone with the will to actually use it.

It reminds me a bit of Fargo, season 3 I think? Two of the main characters are getting constantly outplayed, but are still generally keeping to the confines, rules and routines of their regular lives. One of them, who is trying to deal with it, asks to be ‘unleashed’, to try and deal with the problem directly, no restrictions, the other eventually gives him permission. The guy sets out full of resolve and confidence, but ultimately falls completely flat, because really, pretty much nothing was being ‘held back’, and this direct approach also cost them their status. I think of it a lot looking at Russia at the moment, they could always do X if they really wanted to, but they don’t, but they could. Now they’ve crossed that line, and it has cost them dearly, but they had less in reserve than they seemed to think, now they will hint at more mobilisation, industrial capacity, etc to seem like they’re holding back.

When things are bad in some way, very few people are willing to accept that this is likely the best they can expect. The belief that they could do something if they wanted, is quite the cope, and if they actually do want to do the thing, then they will look to ‘strong’ leaders who claim to have the will to do just that. Then they usually flop.

Sometimes, though, this is completely true, as with your example, Napoleon was someone capable of unlocking the potential of France that had been held back initially by conservative ideas, then by factionalism and instability. But that was an example of extreme internal turmoil, that he was able to fix, while also being a legitimate genius, able to implement ideas decades ahead of his time, with an almost singular focus and determination. I don’t like Napoleon, but I have a great deal of respect for him, especially the earlier part of his career.

People always look for simple answers. Simple things that ‘need to be done’ to get the right outcome. It may be nationalising companies, eating the rich, building the wall, destroying Carthage or taking the Sudetenland. The question is; 1. will these actions achieve the outcomes they seek, and b) what will it cost? Because it’s easy to look at politicians as being malicious, scheming and evil, but really, if there’s such an easy fix to massively improve everyones’ lives, even if they don’t entirely agree on an ideological level, it will secure votes for them for decades, so it will usually be done regardless. The only reason it wouldn’t is when they are worried that the cost will outweigh the benefit.

I guess a lot of it must be the belief that things could be better, that a country, organisation, etc is actually capable of so much more, but is holding back, and it just needs someone with the will to actually use it.

It reminds me a bit of Fargo, season 3 I think? Two of the main characters are getting constantly outplayed, but are still generally keeping to the confines, rules and routines of their regular lives. One of them, who is trying to deal with it, asks to be ‘unleashed’, to try and deal with the problem directly, no restrictions, the other eventually gives him permission. The guy sets out full of resolve and confidence, but ultimately falls completely flat, because really, pretty much nothing was being ‘held back’, and this direct approach also cost them their status. I think of it a lot looking at Russia at the moment, they could always do X if they really wanted to, but they don’t, but they could. Now they’ve crossed that line, and it has cost them dearly, but they had less in reserve than they seemed to think, now they will hint at more mobilisation, industrial capacity, etc to seem like they’re holding back.

When things are bad in some way, very few people are willing to accept that this is likely the best they can expect. The belief that they could do something if they wanted, is quite the cope, and if they actually do want to do the thing, then they will look to ‘strong’ leaders who claim to have the will to do just that. Then they usually flop.

Sometimes, though, this is completely true, as with your example, Napoleon was someone capable of unlocking the potential of France that had been held back initially by conservative ideas, then by factionalism and instability. But that was an example of extreme internal turmoil, that he was able to fix, while also being a legitimate genius, able to implement ideas decades ahead of his time, with an almost singular focus and determination. I don’t like Napoleon, but I have a great deal of respect for him, especially the earlier part of his career.

People always look for simple answers. Simple things that ‘need to be done’ to get the right outcome. It may be nationalising companies, eating the rich, building the wall, destroying Carthage or taking the Sudetenland. The question is; 1. will these actions achieve the outcomes they seek, and b) what will it cost? Because it’s easy to look at politicians as being malicious, scheming and evil, but really, if there’s such an easy fix to massively improve everyones’ lives, even if they don’t entirely agree on an ideological level, it will secure votes for them for decades, so it will usually be done regardless. The only reason it wouldn’t is when they are worried that the cost will outweigh the benefit.