grasshopperpurp

This is an excellent caveat to the OP's post, which is good general advice. In my mid-20s, I was working 3rd shift, and a lot of hours, while my then and current GF was working a lot of hours on 1st shift. We had lived together for 5+ years by this point, but I was extremely discontent with life (as background, we had a great friendship that turned into an amazing relationship before the stress began to take its toll). Through a combination of always feeling like a zombie, feeling disconnected, lack of communication, just generally feeling terrible about life, and her being the closest to me, I became convinced that my unhappiness stemmed from our relationship, rather than my own immaturity meeting and external factors. Probably important to note that during this time I never lost respect, love, or admiration; I just questioned our compatibility.

Thankfully, I took time to question my conclusions, and I received some good advice from a good friends. I took some big steps forward in understanding my self and my relationship, changed jobs (no more 3rd shift), and the level of communication shot through the roof. Some years later, I wouldn't say we have a perfect relationship, but it's more perfect than I thought possible. There are still outside stresses, but we're steadying forces in each other's lives.

Definitely don't stick around people who make you feel terrible - or any kind of net negative, but many times when we're making these calculations, we're not in our most centered states, so be careful to make sure that the friend in question is the source of displeasure, rather than yourself/external factors.

Especially when the DoJ says that fleeing domestic and gang violence are not grounds for asylum, it's ridiculous to consider the lives of a corrupt cop and his family above society, which this decision does.

Absolutely - and a great example - but that's more of a sub-issue than the actual issue itself.

>There is a narrative that things like gun control, abortion, etc are subjective subjects. They're really not.

So, what are the objectively correct stances on these issues?

You're very right, and I don't like the way the OP framed the argument. The problem is 1) even though we're capable, as you note, we're terrible at utilizing it, and 2) we're so much more powerful than any other species, so when we do lack restraint, we cause much more damage.

>It's cowardly because you wouldn't use fighting words like this in a context where you believed they might respond like many reasonable people would: a punch in the mouth.

Fighting words - with regard to insults - is a purely childish concept. No reasonable person would punch someone in the mouth over an insult. The word you're looking for is immature - not reasonable.

Yes, and the the thing is that most people are "on the border" - that is to say, little more than a product of their environment (speaking of their actions/attitudes, not their worth as people). If you teach an entire population ethics (assuming it's done well and everything that comes with that), you will still have your 5-10% of rotten apples, just as you'd have 5-10% who would seek out ethics on their own. The big difference will be in the 80-90%.

>According to Chapman and Kipfer in their "Dictionary of American Slang", By 1975 the term had expanded in meaning beyond the poor Southerner to refer to "a bigoted and conventional person, a loutish ultra-conservative."[20]

If the OP was using it in this way, I don't see the issue. If he/she was using it to just describe laboring, rural whites, I agree; it's offensive and inappropriate. Given the context of the statement, I assumed the former.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck

On the topic, Randy Newman's song "Rednecks" is a scathing critique of Northerners and their "hidden" racism and hypocrisy on the subject.

>Yes he's free to be put in a cage In Harlem in New York City And he's free to be put in a cage On the South Side of Chicago And the West Side And he's free to be put in a cage In Hough in Cleveland And he's free to be put in a cage In East St. Louis And he's free to be put in a cage In Fillmore in San Francisco And he's free to be put in a cage In Roxbury in Boston They're gatherin' 'em up from miles around . . . (apologies for the formatting)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTLHxpUQ_B8 (NWS)

It looks like countries with greater inequality may provide more motivation for people to move up. Of course, there are countless other factors (regulation, societal norms, etc.), but if I'm a generally content person living in Finland or Sweden, and I'm relatively (but not remarkably) poor and still have what I need, I can focus on self-improvements that make me happy/fullfilled. If I'm in the USA, it'd be hard to divorce the idea of self-improvement from how I can monetize it. In countries where the poor feel more threatened (talking degrees, not absolutes), there's real urgency to distance yourself from that class.

I also wonder if the higher mobility among countries like GB, Japan, the US, and Turkey suggest societies that create more zero-sum scenarios. I'd be interested in other explanations.

Are you sure that fair is the word you're after?

I used to joke around with my brother that it'd be funny for the cutter to intentionally cut the cake like 9/10 to 1/10 then get outraged when the chooser took the bigger piece. But, you're absolutely right - choosing is better.

>It's sort of an interesting tradeoff. On one hand, it's not desirable for most people to rent longterm, and owning property is an important way to store and grow wealth. On the other hand, you don't want a few well financed investors sweeping in and buying all the available housing just as a kind of depository for funds.

Wouldn't it also disincentivize people from lobbying for zoning laws that are only beneficial to homeowners?

The Longest Day of the Future is another good example.

https://www.amazon.com/Longest-Day-Future-Lucas-Varela/dp/16...

This reply, a little further up, should clarify the OP's point.

https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=17437151&goto=item%3Fi...

I believe it was in the liner notes for Safe as Milk that I read John Lennon had something like seven copies and that it was his favorite new album at the time of its release.

Cooder has some interesting stories about why he parted ways with Vilet.

I have a real soft spot for Autumn's Child, and I also really like Call on Me and I'm Glad; plus, you get some awesome Ry Cooder moments on Safe as Milk.

But, you've nailed my favorite Beefheart period (Shiny Beast-Ice Cream for Crow), and Shiny Beast stands apart as my favorite (The Floppy Boot Stomp, Tropical Hot Dog Night, Bat Chain Puller, Apes-Ma, etc.). During this period, his work had a balance and maturity - without sacrificing much of his quirkiness.

>Surely the solution then isn’t more housing for them, but more mental health services for them?

Agree with your other points, but both is the correct answer. It'd be wasteful to treat someone's mental health and leave them in a situation that deteriorates their mental health.

This is exactly right. It's the price people pay for living in a place that doesn't care about its people.

>The data in this case is their only asset. They are a data broker, and their entire existence is predicated on the idea that this data is valuable to them.

Other than them, who cares? If you want to put people in harm's way, you should accept the consequences when harm occurs.

>I think we need to teach people that their data is valuable, likely dangerous in the hands of others, and not to spew it all over the web. Kinda like we did before FB convinced everybody to use their real names.

No, it's much easier to hold the companies accountable, and they should be held accountable. No company that suffers a "data breach" should have the resources to exist after the breach. Society should punish them out of existence, because they are known cancers.

That's really cool! My background is in lit, but I had the good luck of falling for a talented artist (whose specialty happens to be line work). I've learned a lot from her over the years but still not enough to be very opinionated about the quality of lines. Klee and Kandinsky just pop off the page to me. When I look at their pieces that best resonate with me, it's like looking at a small section of nature and understanding how full of live it is - and how much is going on that you can't see. I'm guessing a lot of people have similar experiences with different artists, and I love reading/hearing glowing reactions to artists I "don't get," because I usually learn a lot about both the artist and the writer/speaker.

A couple of my favorites from the period are Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky - vibrant period for literature, as well.

I agree with you, and that's succinctly said. It reminded me of this article from a couple days ago.

>Trump administration claims only 250,000 Americans live in extreme poverty, despite UN estimates of 18m

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-extreme...

That's amazing!

>I'm sorry, but me and you don't matter. And any believe that we do is to satisfy our egos only.

True.

> Its our kids that matter.

If you and I don't matter, neither do the kids.

>And with this mentality humanity will prevail. If we loose sight of this humanity will eventually not.

This also doesn't matter.

You can acknowledge the feelings of your partner and yourself without making those feelings the fuel of the argument. In my own experience, acknowledging my partner's feelings makes me immediately calmer, more-grounded, and better able to understand her POV. I imagine it works the same for most people.

If you're with someone you trust, you inherently respect his/her POV. For some, this causes disagreements to boil into violent outrages. They feel an attack on that trust. For others, they take a step back and say, 'This is someone I trust with my life. Either he/she or I am missing something somewhere.'

I know, but I'm pretty sure that's what the OP was referring to.

Think OP is referring to the last-minute amendments.

Please help me understand how the context of him arguing for a tax increase changes the meaning of the quote. How does the quote (independent of context) give an unfair impression of Buffett?

>There’s been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won

- Warren Buffett

No, not at all. This is closer to what the parent was saying

By that argument, someone will:

* beat his wife - true

* murder an enemy - true

* shoot up a school full of children - true

* commit arson - true

* jump bail - true

* evade arrest - true

* die in a hail of bullets - true

You see, all these things do happen. The parent is not arguing that because something is possible any one individual will do it. You're arguing a very different thing.