Phi for All

It's not a problem. Depression is like cancer, one often doesn't realize one has it until it's suddenly affecting everything in one's life. Respecting how a person wants to be addressed by peers may seem like a little thing, but it can have an enormous effect on self-esteem. And ultimately, if I get a happier, more confident Koti to discuss science or politics with, it benefits me greatly. If I care about the pronouns others use wrt me, I'm not going to set a double standard by ignoring their wishes.

It may take us a while to change since it's "old normal" to address someone who looks like a man as "he", but if you're sincere I have no problems with it. Since I'm going to be addressing Ze as a pronoun at some point, it might as well be something Ze appreciate. Oh man, that's pretty sneaky! You move the goalposts while demanding they now stay in place. Hoogland's case involves him going public about a 15 year old girl's private biology. The way the stories read, he's being held in contempt on another charge and NOT this new law, because Canadian law is very twitchy about using the names of minors in news stories.

To be brutally honest, you aren't. I know you've stated that traditional learning isn't your thing, but the areas you're interested in are extremely deep and interconnected with other branches of science, and it's almost impossible to study effectively without a regimented coursework designed to help you learn the knowledge you need in the best sequences. The pushback you're getting in this thread is mostly because you're asking us to help you do something in the most difficult way possible. It's like you asked for our help in getting from your home to Washington DC, but you only want to do it by swinging from tree branches. Perhaps you can see how this looks from our perspective? It seems unnecessarily difficult and we have to wonder if it's helpful to encourage you, and we also wonder if you aren't ultimately joking (because yes, what you're asking for is going to be impossible-adjacent). But in any case, let's stay civil and avoid lashing out. Clarity is important here.

The Extremists driving the GOP agenda these days appear to admire the Taliban, so perhaps your friends could pretend to be something they aren't. If your friends tolerate homosexuality, it will be seen as weak, not what "real men" tolerate. This will be a big problem with the Extremists in the GOP. They want to define masculinity in very restrictive ways, and part of that is being physically aggressive and violent, not afraid to smack folks around to get your way. They believe people listen to you when your hands are around their throats. The Republican Party is in big trouble with the electorate as people urbanize, get better educated, and learn more about living in a society. As their numbers dwindle, they're lashing out, trying to find ways to reduce the electorate by restricting who can vote, or where or when you can vote. In many cases, they're just refusing to acknowledge votes that don't go in their favor, even when certified by their own, even when audited over and over. In denying reality and replacing it with conspiracy, they can pretend to be their own version of justice warrior, fighting for Democracy as long as their party always wins. And as far as toting your gun around goes, you're just giving them what they want, an excuse to shoot you as the aggressor. You won't be seen as a comrade in arms, you'll be the armed person who loves gays and Muslims and hates 'Murica. I don't think the dangerous potential of the "Trump Won" extremists is being overstated. Just as we saw in the Capitol riot this January, we're not taking them seriously enough, and they're getting stronger for it. And that means our democracy is weakening under the attack as the extremists thirst for a modern civil war.

I dislike the use of broad generalizations while simultaneously trying to draw shallow conclusions from guesswork about people's motivations. We don't have a specific rule against it, other than to keep asking for evidence and support, but the other side of this particular coin is a lack of engagement once the thread is open.

One big problem with this stance is that you become the sole arbiter of what "unnecessarily", "over sensitive", "perfectly clear", "accepted", "alleged", "offending", and "intention" actually mean for all those you interact with. It's far too easy to confirm your own biases in these circumstances, yet want others to take everything YOU do in context. If you're into science, you should be trying to remove subjectivity where you can. And I'm sorry, but I've seen FAR too many folks flat out insult someone else and then claim I didn't know you were so sensitive/I'm just poking fun/I'm just being honest/don't make such a big deal/I call them like I see them/you're taking this wrong. You can't hold yourself blameless when your words cause offense if you aren't trying to maintain objectivity.

And even if dyslexia is an excuse, a reasonable person would focus on the mention of your dislike of a certain spelling, rather than assume you're sensitive about members using your correct username. I think your mind, education, and professional status intimidates some people who object to being tethered to facts. And that could also be part of why some folks grab the words of JP and use them to bolster their own positions. He's a professional (in a different field), well-educated, with a prestigious position, and he wants them to be real men!

! Moderator Note Similar topics merged.

Are you really that blind? His name is based on the military lingo for Swanson, T. When people use "-snot" instead of "-sont, it can seem purposeful and disrespectful, and it's not being "brittle" when the same people continue to do it.

Nothing wrong with thinking and dreaming, but on a science discussion site, we like a bit more trustworthiness than guessing usually offers. Having science knowledge focuses your thinking and dreaming, and allows you to reach farther in your ideas. Most people can get in a car and drive it, but learning how to drive makes you capable of traveling much further. Does that make sense, or is learning mainstream science part of the "boring Earth" you left long ago?

! Moderator Note Thanks joigus! Let's make this official. ColinJ, can you copy/paste from your document and post it here? It's important to make sure each step in an idea is sound before taking another.

I wouldn't presume because I didn't fight hard to own the word so I could turn the meaning into something me and my children could live with. I didn't grow up using it and having it used against me. Even if I would never use the word in the venomous context for which it originally was intended, I don't think I'm entitled to share in its new friendly meaning. Not because I'm white, but because it would be like claiming I helped build a house just because I didn't complain about the noise during construction. But because I'm white, I'm also willing to let black people use it to mean friend (and defend it as such) until nobody is using it to mean unworthy animal.

That's a bold move, Cotton! Such temerity deserves better answers than you'll get with the title question. This is a science discussion site, and we believe in clarity.

I agree completely, and I think this needs to be a government fix if we're to see progress in this area. People are usually willing to do their parts, which proves corporations aren't people. My point was just that the consumer has been on the stinky end of the whole modern retail model for quite some time. Most of the stuff that's supposed to be convenient is more convenient for the manufacturers and retailers than it is for the consumer. Like overpackaging an item "for its protection" when it's really done to make it easier to ship and harder to shoplift.

But M Kaku used flowerier language and a LOT more drama and made it sound so sensational in his books! Next time, maybe some explosions. And more cowbell.

! Moderator Note Speculations need evidential support to elevate them above conspiracy, which is a waste of intelligent people's time. StringJunky sets a great example, thank you! Posts that are guesses only may be hidden.

They probably figured we were already grinding our own beans, assembling our own furniture, DIYing our home remodels, bagging our own groceries, and pumping our own gas so we probably wouldn't mind.

What I remember is how rare it was to find someone who knew how to draw blood without taking forever to find a vein (and I have great veins), leaving bruises, and causing pain until modern phlebotomy tools and techniques using disposables became prevalent. Now the instances of infection from blood draws are greatly reduced, and now it's rare for me to find a phlebotomist who isn't skilled and professional. I personally tend to buy my cotton swabs in bulk, but I'm not a hospital, and if they can show that they can prevent sepsis by wrapping their Q-tips individually, then we need them to do that. We should spend more effort figuring out more efficient disposal, and ways to limit the use of single-use disposables in other areas.

I used to campaign against disposables in medicine (I want high-quality, precision needles and scalpels being used, so doesn't that mean expensive tools and autoclaving?), but after several discussions here and with medical professionals, I've come around to why disposables and healthcare actually works out best. I'd almost argue that we should only allow disposable alternatives where health and well-being are affected (as opposed to convenience only disposables). Tell you what, if you can campaign with the grocery stores to be able to use our own containers for bulk dry foods, and figure out how to make it average citizen proof, I might join a campaign for re-usable pill bottles. And I think the packaged daily doses of medicine absolutely have advantages for certain patients, but get abused simply for convenience by too many.

! Moderator Note Moved from Speculations to Ecology and the Environment. Without knowing how your life operates, the general advice is reducing, reusing, and recycling the products you consume wherever you can. Remove all incandescent light bulbs and replace them with lower wattage/higher efficiency alternatives like CFLs and LEDs. Use mass transit or bicycle/walk instead of driving a car, and arrange to work from home whenever possible. There are LOTS of things to do to reduce your carbon footprint, so look at what you need to do to maintain a stable orbit in your life, and then ask yourself where you can do with less, or without, or with something the works better with your environment.

You aren't considering the promotional aspect in context. We're inundated every day with commercial links and attempts to promote various YT channels and other for-profit endeavors. Not that the OP of the thread you're talking about is trying to push people to watch the movie, but it happens often. We try to use our best judgement, but people can be very clever about their agendas when money is involved. I might have invoked 2.7 on the grounds that there's no reason to watch a whole movie when the OP could just as well have described the situation he was unclear about without aiming our members offsite. It was a language problem that kept the OP from understanding rather than a science problem, iirc.

This suggests there might be a big difference between neurodivergent processing and the "extreme personality traits" mentioned in the title, maybe as basic as thoughts vs actions. Extreme personalities tend to resist integration, and they're much more evident to others.

And first on that guidelines list is to ask yourself, "How could this be tested to ensure that it's true?" You make some assertions that are unfalsifiable wrt individual existence in multiple universes (like, the person you've known a long time doesn't really exist in their universe, only in yours, that bit). Your idea must have a way to show it's false before you can test it.

You'd have to change a LOT to remove/reduce the pressures that led to our current population. Those 5B happened for LOTS of reasons, and to assume it was just the church or just the need for labor or just the fun of procreation is too simplistic for a sophisticated septuagenarian such as yourself. By difficult choices I assume you think we should kill some folks off or force sterilization, but again that's too simplistic a solution. You can achieve MUCH more with better education and healthcare. Educated people have/need fewer children, it's a fact. Make 'em smart and you also get to live with smarter people, which would really be a treat.

A LOT of those countries experienced cataclysms (Venezuela, Boznia and Herzegovina, Syria, Serbia to name a few). Since you're removing 5B people, I think most would have gone the route of war, famine, and pestilence. Most of the others on the list keep their populations in check with education and healthcare. Seventy years ago, if the entire world would have focused their efforts on educating the population and making sure healthy choices were always available, I suppose that would allow us to grow our culture and technology in ways that don't automatically require more of us to do the work.