Was listening to a pod where one person shared a funny, and having fun is taking care of your ~mental.health

This is my kind of humour, an 'article' about it: https://pleated-jeans.com/2023/08/29/disappointing-affirmations-dave-tarnowski/

And a link to the instagram account https://www.instagram.com/disappointingaffirmations/ for those who use instagram.

The episode in question: Divergent Conversations: Episode 106(mp3)

Maybe this isn't really a good topic, but maybe you'd like to share what makes you laugh, good podcasts or how you use humour for ~mental.health.

I also wrote something related in one the monthly check in topics, so maybe @chocobean would like to give an update! (Sorry for calling you out like this, just trying to have some fun)

I've been thinking perhaps I'll need to get one of the desktop LLM UI. I've been out of touch with the state of the art of end user LLM as I've been exclusively using it via API, but tech-y people (who are not developers) mostly talk about the end-user products that I lack the knowledge of.

Ethical problems aside, the problem with non-API usage is, even if you pay, I can't find one that have better privacy policy than API. And the problem with API version is that it is not as good as the completed apps unless you want to reinvent the wheel. The apps also may include ads in the future, while API technically cannot as it would affect some downstream usecases.

As a dual use technology, the table doesn't include the extra retention period if they detect an abuse. Additionally, if you click on thumbs up/down it may also be recorded for the provider's employee to review.

I don't think OpenWebUI, self hosted models, etc. would suffice if they are not built to the same quality as the first party products. I know I'm probably asking for something that doesn't exists here, but at least I hope it will bring to people's attention that even if you're paying for the product you might not get the same privacy protection as API users.

Obviously, Canada and U.S. are entirely different political systems with different media environments and so forth, but as someone who likes the content of podcasters like The Daily Show, Trevor Noah, Hasan Minhaj and podcasters/tech journalists like Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher and "free thinkers" like Bari Weiss and her ilk, I am wondering if Canada has any similar content that I am just unable to find with google/duck searches? As a Canadian, I think I should be consuming more content that goes over Canadian news rather than American but our media environment seems really barren if you are trying to avoid CBC produced material.

The closest I could find was Canadaland but after a few episodes, I found that host is of a particular brand of "progressive" that I don't particularly care for.

Listened to Craig Ferguson on his podcast "Joy" talking with Diedrich Bader, last known for playing Jethro in the Beverly Hillbillies movie (which flopped).

The most interesting part was their discussion about gaining and losing that "Hollywood aura" - they agreed it was like someone handing you a magic hat, and while you're wearing it, you're the most special person in the room and everyone wants your attention. And then the hat goes away and you're back to being very ordinary and in at lot of cases, become an actor somewhat desperately looking for more work. Which is why they attend so many parties and awards. It's not so much about the glamor, its about getting a chance to network and try to find a new gig with the producers and directors and financiers in attendance.

Bader asked Ferguson if there was anyone he interviewed that gave him that sense of awe, someone who still wore that magic hat? Nope. Ferguson said after years of doing his Late Night show they were all just people. New "star", old "star", none of them really made a big impression.

Although he DID say when Sean Connery shook his wife's hand her chest visibly blushed and Craig asked her later what that was all about. She said, "Well it doesnt do it for YOU but THAT was Sean Connery!" Pretty funny.

But it was interesting to hear some insiders talking about other insiders the way they did. They're all just actors looking to stay employed. Which makes sense when you see an A list actor in a B movie and wonder why they took that role. Probably had bills to pay, that's why.

I wanted to share this, in case there are interested folks who haven't checked it out yet. This is me gushing about a thing I love and hoping other folks are listening because the story is so good.

Worlds Beyond Number is a podcast run and owned by Brennan Lee Mulligan, Aabria Iyengar, Erika Ishii, and Lou Wilson with the goal of being able to tell the stories they want without time/production pressures. Taylor Moore is the producer and composer.

What stories are they telling?
The first and largest story so far is The Wizard, The Witch and The Wild One, set in the world of Umora using D&D, that starts from Level 1 (with a children's level 0 adventure) with the intent of this being the first long term campaign. The characters are in a world that I'd describe as Ghibli inspired - which includes some of the lightest sweetest moments and some of the most devastating moments of war. There's a bit of a running joke about which character is getting a Kiki or Ponyo moment vs a Mononoke moment in an episode. The Witch is a custom class, the Wizard has a custom subclass, and the Wild One has a custom paladin subclass.

But they've also played a few side games, Erika ran a game of Roll for Shoes, a chaotic game featuring a gangster chicken, a goat that may or may not be the devil, and a retired race horse doing a heist of corn from the county fair. A space jam inspired Space Cram two shot Aabria ran using Tournament Arc and a few prequels set in different areas of the world of Umora.

Where can it be found?
Any podcatcher, with the talkback "Fireside Chats," Children's Adventure, and the side adventures behind a $5 a month Patreon. No other tiers, the goal is to just fund the podcast.

What makes it stand out from other shows

The level of sincerity, and the fact these are some of the absolute best storytellers in the field who consider this their favorite story. In most actual play the rails are firmly on (dimension 20 due to # of episodes) or the episodes are essentially unedited (Critical Role), but these characters have fully split the party multiple times, and have come into genuine conflict, so much so that listeners have, para socially, been upset with players on behalf of the other players for how the characters are acting.

The show is also edited so some rolls and table talk are cut from the finished episodes (the narrative play label), but never to a point where you can't track what's happening. And you still get to hear a delighted squeal, a stressed exhale or a "let's go!" at the table.

The aesthetics are also wonderful with music and sound effects, the characters and different factions have themes that will come back and blend into motifs.

What's coming up next
The fourth "chapter" and first "book" is wrapping up here soon with a bit over 50 episodes, characters around level 5, and major character arc conclusions and then the show is going to take a break from Umora to start another longer campaign run by Aabria, probably hopping back and forth in the future as the goal is not for Brennan to run for like 5 years straight.

Anyway I love these folks (in a non-boundary crossing way) and I love their stories and hope some of y'all are already watching or will check it out and want to talk about it too!

(Note idk where to put this, podcast isn't a group, I went with games.tabletop)

Disclaimers and trigger warnings

The purpose of this mediocre and pseudo-philosophical diatribe of mine is to foster discussion.

I’ve come to understand that this is what Tildes is for. This isn’t a “platform” (I don’t think that I can even call it that) like Reddit, which has become like any other social media app, that is designed for retaining attention, make money from ads and in-app perks, and give people the means to build a following on the Internet.

As such, I’m proposing to you that we, well... discuss... something.

Now, we do discuss a lot of things in here, but it’s obviously more interesting to discuss hot button issues, am I right? I’m talking about those that we seem to be all be up in arms about these days. lol

I know that some of the topics that I will bring up can be very triggering to a lot of people.

I want you to know that I do not intend to harm nor hurt anyone with my words.

I spent hours (I’m not exaggerating) carefully crafting this, uh... “““essay””” of mine, to make sure that the words contained in it will inspire you to engage in a meaningful discussion by sharing your opinions in a polite and humble manner, think more deeply and nuanced about these issues, and perhaps (I can only hope) extend a hand to those who disagree with you.

When I wrote this piece, I did so feeling completely at ease. In my head, I heard my own words, as if I was having a dialogue with you all. I imagined sitting with you in a big circle, talking with you face-to-face. My tone was natural and calm, and I occasionally used a humorous tone (marked by every instance where I wrote “lol”, which always refers back to the sentence immediately preceding it). This is how I’d like you to imagine that I’m talking to you through these words, because that’s exactly what I’m doing. Even if my choice of words isn’t the best (for which I apologize upfront, if anything that I wrote offends you), then know that in no way did I write any of these words with an accusatory tone in mind. I hope that this visualization makes it easier for you to chew through the bits where you disagree with me.

Also, I was recently made aware that in some online circles, the use of italicized or bold formatting, is equivalent to CAPS LOCK, meaning, a way to express “loud screaming”. That is not how I use these formatting tools. I use italics for emphasizing certain words in my “speech”. Again, imagine that I’m speaking to you face-to-face. A natural part of my speech will be to give emphasis to certain words that are central to the point that I’m making. In writing, I emulate that effect via the use of italics. I hope that makes it clear what I mean. As for bold text, I just use it to highlight a point that I think is particularly important, and that I wish to be easy to find if you ever return to my essay.

(I keep calling this an “essay” for lack of a better term. If you can think of a better word, then please do let me know. I intend no offense to actual essayists. lol)

Finally, if you want to discuss scientific facts with me, then please do so, but know that I’m aiming more for a philosophical discussion. I will admit that, despite my best efforts throughout the years to read as much scientific literature as I can, I have been unable to memorize any studies, papers, or “facts” on any of these topics. I don’t know why that is. Maybe my IQ is too low. So, all of my arguments here will be 100% anecdotal. Either way, I don’t intend to make those of you who do want to cite research or link to news outlets uncomfortable, so feel free to do so. Just know that I will probably not have anything to reply to you in that case. I mean, if the research proves your point, then that ends the discussion, right? lol

More than anything, I’m good at asking thought-provoking questions (I think, I hope), and that’s what I came here to do.

I want to remind you that here on Tildes, there isn’t any “karma”, so I have nothing to gain from posting this (apart from some interesting discussions for a day or two), and have everything to lose.

And with that, I’d like to say that it was nice knowing all of you.

(Just in case I get banned. lol)

Introduction

Over the last few years, much has been said about the political polarization of society, particularly in the United States of America (though this has since spread to much of Europe and other places, I feel).

I often hear folks say that there used to be a time when people’s opinions did not vary so widely as they do today. Allegedly, the majority of the population held politically moderate beliefs that orbited the “center” of the isle. Also, allegedly again, there used to be a culture in which it was acceptable for people to “agree to disagree”.

I have heard from these people that all of this has radically changed. One can now simply not have moderate opinions on any topic anymore. One must pick a side and blindly adhere to it, 100%. It is also not possible (nor safe) to engage with the opposite safe, under any circumstances. There are only two camps: red and blue, right and left, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, Christian and Atheist, carnivore and vegan, fossil fuels and green energy, Windows and Mac, PC and consoles.

The last two dichotomies are just a joke. lol

The more I think about this, the more I doubt if there ever has been a “golden age of tolerance” in “recorded” human history though. I say “recorded”, because as far back historically as we can look, I see that all that humanity has ever done is to be at war with itself.

Maybe back then, it made a bit more sense that we looked with suspicion upon each other, after all, we didn’t know three things:

1. That we all resided on the same globe.
2. That we’re all the exact same species.
3. That the planet can sustain all of us...

...if we properly steward its resources.

But now we do know. We do know how big this planet is. We know more or less to what extent its resources can support our way of living. We also know that all of us are part of the same human species. We know (or should know) that fighting each other is pointless, and that we have more to gain from cooperating and living in harmony.

And yet, we still choose not to.

But it’s not only about resources, living space, and ethnicity that we fight each other now. Now we also fight over ethics, morality, societal norms, culture, or in one word: politics.

Now, politics is a bit of different debate than the other three items.

I think...

Because resources and living space are a thing that a group can have and lose to another group, for example.

But is a “political opinion” the same?

Well, if you think of politics as a tool for securing a group’s “rights”, then I can see why you would think that way. To give an over-simplified and sadly caricaturized (but often and hotly debated) example: The liberal side of the isle argues that if a country enacts and enforces a law stating that trans women are not entitled to using public restrooms assigned to women, then they lose that right, making it so that one group has more rights than the other. But the conservative side of the isle will argue that “biological women” have a right to have the restrooms assigned to them be private spaces where no “biological man” can enter, which is a right that they would lose if an opposite law was enacted and enforced, meaning that a different group would have less right.

(oof That was a mouthful. lol You wouldn’t believe how long it took me to craft those last two sentences. lol)

Notice how even the language employed by both sides wildly differs, for example, with the terms “trans women” and “biological women”.

So, does that mean that polarization is pre-programmed into the human species? Will we always want to fight over resources, living space, ethnicity, and which political ideology is the “correct” one? Are humans designed to seek reasons to disagree with each other?

And taking these questions to the absolute extreme: Are civil wars inevitable?

Could one in the US be on the horizon?

A lot of people sadly seem to think so.

(And it’s even more unfortunate that we have plenty of historic precedent for that.)

Or...

...is there perhaps a way for us to agree to disagree, to live and let live, and to ensure that everyone has the freedom to do as they choose, no matter what set of politics they believe in, and yet not have their freedom interfere with the freedom of any other?

Are the “culture wars” just a distraction?

Some say that we’re all just being made to fight each other, so that we’re distracted from what is really going on, which supposedly is the fact that there is a “tiny and elite cabal” that sits on the capstone of the pyramid of society, which wants to retain all of its wealth and power, and can only do so if we don’t notice that they exist, because if we did, then we would depose them.

I won’t deny that our world’s society has a clear elite that exercises a lot of influence over all of us, but I don’t believe that this tiny cabal that sits at the top really exists. I find it more plausible to say that there are very many competing groups of “elites”, and that there is no society that we can take refuge in where we won’t end up having to submit to one (meaning, a governing power). Some elites just happen to be slightly more benevolent and open to feedback from those who they rule than others.

(I even question whether in human society, it would even be possible for a political system to arise where, from the “peasant” all the way to the “president”, everyone is treated equally and has access to the same amount of wealth and influence. Notice that I couldn’t even find the language to avoid using words that denote a difference in class.)

But let’s assume for a moment that the “tiny capstone cabal” does exist, and that they are just pitting us all against one another. How could we stop that? Could we all join hands, climb the pyramid, and topple the capstone? Could we overcome our extreme differences of political opinion to focus on dethroning corrupt political leaders and installing fully trustworthy and competent ones?

(Do such politicians even exist? Or does power always, inevitably corrupt those who have it? I sometimes imagine myself trying to get into politics only as far as it would take for someone to try to bride me to peddle my influence. My gut tells me that I wouldn’t even get into any office before the first “buyer” appeared. lol So, on a more serious note, aren’t humans just inherently self-serving? Doesn’t everyone has a “price tag”? I do sincerely wonder what my price tag is sometimes, and if I would truly be willing to die for what I believe in.)

So, what I find somewhat amusing about the discussion surrounding this idea that the elites are to blame for the polarization, is that neither side seems to be willing to give up on its ideals. I have heard some on the left say: “Reproductive and trans rights aren’t the issue and aren’t going to hurt anyone. The elites are the problem.” But to very many people on the right, “outlawing abortion and banning gender ideology” is something that is going to “prevent” a lot of people from “getting hurt”. It’s a hill that they are willing to die on. In other words, what one side thinks is “obviously” a minor issue, is a major issue for the other side, and vice-versa.

So, who gets to decide what is and isn’t an important moral principle that needs to be protected by the law, and which side is willing to change its opinion on the matter, or at least, agree to concede its position on it?

Let’s look at some more concrete examples:

“Abortion” versus “reproductive rights”

A few months ago I stumbled on this podcast episode, moderated by one Ellen Fisher, where a “liberal feminist” influencer, Bronte Remsik, hashed it out with a “conservative wife” influencer, Isabel Brown. The topic of the debate was abortion.

I felt so nervous through the whole thing. The tension was palpable. I felt as if the two would jump on each other and viciously tear each other apart at any moment.

But maybe it was just me. Maybe I’m the unreasonable, overly sensitive one here. Maybe the two of them actually felt calm throughout (or at most, a little nervous) the whole thing. I should say that Ellen Fisher did an excellent job (I think) at giving both sides equal opportunity to build, consolidate, and defend their arguments. I don’t think that anything was left unsaid. I therefore highly recommend this podcast to you. It’s probably the best debate on the topic of abortion that I have ever heard.

However Remsik and Brown may have felt about each other and the debate, they kept it together. They remained polite. They looked in each other’s eyes while they talked. They didn’t use any bad faith arguments (not that I noticed anyway). They kept a calm tone of voice throughout. They didn’t get sarcastic with each other. It felt as though they were trying to listen to understand, rather than to reply (to a certain extent anyway). And surprisingly, they even agreed on a few points.

Wow. Refreshing. As intense as it was, I loved listening to both of them.

What I thought was the high point of this debate, was when they reached the bedrock of the issue. It turns out that their opinions on the matter are built on entirely different foundations. This was best illustrated, I think, when Remsik argued that forcing a woman to take her pregnancy to full term, violates her bodily autonomy. Brown countered by arguing that an abortion always violates the bodily autonomy of the baby. The discussion then moved to a debate about whether it morally matters more that the “already living and conscious” woman gets to choose if the fetus continues to “exploit” her body for its development, or the baby is given the opportunity to be born as he or she “naturally intends” to in order for him or her to later decide what to do with his or her own life. The debate boiled down to: “Which of the two ‘lives’ ‘matters’ more?”

Notice how, again, I tried to emulate the specific (and differing) language used by both sides. There was even a moment where Remsik was referring to “people who can get pregnant” in these terms, and Brown insisted on calling them “women” and “mothers” instead. Honestly, I’m worried that someday we won’t even be speaking the same language anymore and will become unable to understand each other. I think that was what George Orwell warned us about with the concept of newspeek, among other things.

With such a fundamental disagreement, it was inevitable that Remsik and Brown would end the debate at an impasse.

So, I’m not sure that they could become “friends” outside of this debate, and that saddens me.

But at least they were able to agree to disagree. They were willing to face each other and discuss this difficult topic without vitriol.

It probably wasn’t easy for them, but I think that it was worth it.

“Gender ideology” versus “LGBTQ+ rights”

I’m a Christian, and I have a very close gay friend.

I know. It’s a cliché. I understand that.

But it’s true.

And in fact, we met all the way back in 2015. We were very close friends for three to four years before he felt comfortable enough to come out to me.

Yes, we have discussed his sexual orientation at length. I have given him a fully open ear to tell me about his story and experiences. We never had anything even close to resembling a heated argument. I have never told him to seek any sort of conversion therapy. He told me that he knew that he was gay from whence he was a child. He told me that he has a good relationship with his parents and siblings (which I know he does), and that there isn’t any some sort of “repressed trauma” that “made” him gay. For all that we know, he was born that way, and he can’t change.

Now, his friendship has been one of the most important and meaningful to me in the years since we’ve met. We come from different countries but have spent a lot of time together. We have even traveled together (some of my fondest memories). We often update each other and talk just about anything. No, he’s not secretly into me (he’s into blondes, and I’ve known a lot of his crushes, lol), and he has known and been friends with my wife for about as long, because we all met around the same time. In fact, it’s a bit of a long story, but if it wasn’t for this gay man, then I wouldn’t be happily married today to begin with.

I won’t pretend that I don’t know what the Bible says about homosexuality, and how offensive and hurtful those eight short pieces of text are to people within the LGBTQ+ community. But tell me sincerely, what can I do about it? What can we do about it? Can we just pull a Nineteen Eighty-Four, erect a “Ministry of Truth”, and redact every statement about homosexuality in every Bible that’s in circulation? Should we just get rid of Christianity and the Bible altogether? I’m sincerely asking you to tell me what the solution here is.

As for me, I have long decided that I don’t want to be a part of this “us versus them” circus.

My friend is gay. That won’t change. I don’t want to change him. I know that I couldn’t anyway. We cannot change others. We can only change ourselves.

Therefore, I have chosen to accept my gay just friend as he is.

Gay.

Time will tell if I made the right choice. I’m willing to die eternally (as per the beliefs of my particular Christian denomination), if my choice to embrace this friendship is “a sin” that I’m unrepentant of. Ultimately, I’m not worried about whether I will “be saved” or not though. It’s not up for me to decide. I’m worried about my relationship with God. He is also a good friend to me—my best friend, in fact. I worry that what I do and say things that offend Him—Him who created me and died for me. And I have come to believe that it would be exceedingly offensive to God for me to antagonize my friend for being gay, given that He died for him as well.

All of this is to say that, it seems that a gay man and a Christian man can be close friends, agree on many things, work together (as we have), and live in harmony.

All it took, is for both of us to be willing to be friends.

Now, of course, I’m not suggesting that anyone can be close friends with anyone. That’s a different topic altogether.

My point is that we had the potential to become friends, and we didn’t let the political polarization that needlessly pits members of the LGBTQ+ community and Christians against each other to get in the way of that.

But I’ll be honest with you about something.

As careful as my (admittedly introverted) gay friend is to conceal his sexual orientation from those whom he feels he cannot trust...

...as careful am I to conceal my religious beliefs in the vast majority of the social interactions that I have, because I know that they will not be tolerated. And that leads me to the next topic:

On being a “social double agent”...

...as opposed to a “social butterfly”. lol

As you can imagine, as a Christian, I often hear opinions that deeply offend me and hurt my feelings. This is particularly true when I interact with people in my “secular social circles” (I’ll use that term for lack of a better one). Even those who tout themselves as “tolerant”, feel at ease to equate all of Christianity with bigotry of all kinds, including but not limited to sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, you name it. I hear this list of evils that I’m supposedly guilty of all. The time.

When I was younger, I would get angry whenever someone unfairly characterized my religious beliefs.

These days, I just take a deep breath and... say nothing.

In fact, I have stopped the act of telling my people about my religious (or political beliefs) upfront, unless prompted. And in the case of this thread, I bring up Christianity a lot just because of my personal experiences, and because it is an excellent example of the points that I’m making, since it has become such a devise religion.

It just isn’t safe to be open about my religion anymore.

I have at times gotten into very ugly fights with people (both on and offline), as well as lost friends, or even been excluded from entire friend groups.

A lot of it was justified. I’ll admit that. Still, if you think about it, isn’t that counterproductive? That is, for me, a Christian, to be excluded from “secular social circles” because of some of my beliefs?

Think about it: If I keep being excluded from social circles where the majority of people have opinions different from those of my own, then where am I supposed to go? Well, back to my “echo chambers”, of course.

Isn’t this a self-perpetuating, circular problem that we have in our society today?

People keep excluding each other from social circles for dissenting opinions. Therefore, they retreat into their echo chambers. This makes them exclude dissenting opinions even more, further radicalizing their beliefs. And the cycle continues.

Now, I am aware that I’m about as intelligent and mature as a molding aubergine. lol So, I know that I desperately need to be exposed to a variety of opinions, thoughts, philosophies, ideologies, etc., in order to not become some radical fundamentalist myself. Of course, I’m not willing to adopt any opinion that is out there just for the sake of appearing “tolerant” or open or whatever. However, I know that I can learn from all, and will definitely come closer to a more balanced worldview if I do (cue the cliché) “keep an open mind”.

So, what have I done in these last few years to ensure that I retain access to “secular social circles”?

As I said, I have kept quiet.

I mix and mingle with folks of all kinds of strokes, and when I hear them criticize an opinion that I hold, if I feel that me “coming out” will start a fight, then I just choose to stay quiet and nod.

Experience has taught me that, in many cases, an opportunity will eventually arise for us to discuss that exact opinion on good faith terms, sometime in the future.

But in that particular moment, it just may not be the right time to do that.

Yes, on occasion I meet people on either side who are just completely obnoxious and can’t be reasoned with, whether vocally or silently. They will demand that you either side with them or against them. In those cases, I just distance myself. Acting like a doormat doesn’t help anyone either.

And yes. It could be that I never get an opportunity to “set the record straight” about who I truly am or what I truly believe in.

So what though?

I don’t think that I’d like my epitaph to read: “He always made sure that people knew his opinion about every single thing.” lol

I lose nothing from occasionally “swallowing the frog” (as we say in Portuguese) and keeping quiet. My “opinions” won’t be offended if I don’t defend them. lol

Now, does that mean that sometimes people think that I agree with them when I actually don’t? Would they be offended to eventually find out? Probably. But, I mean, what’s the alternative? “To always say it as it is”? Because that’s really going to benefit both parties, right? lol I mean, the choice is yours. You can be my friend, have meaningful interactions with me, and accept that I may secretly not see eye-to-eye with you (which, let’s be honest, none of us 100% agree on everything), or you can continue to retreat into your echo chamber.

But do my opinions really matter that much? Am I somehow incapable of being a good person to you, and enrich your life with my friendship, because I have opinions that are different from yours? Do my opinions define who I am?

I won’t say that they “completely don’t”, but I’ll say this:

Years ago I learned this really useful principle (starts at 1m 6s) from CGP Grey, that a better way to relate to our opinions, is to think of them as items that are “separate” from us (as in, bodily), and sit somewhere in a “box” (if we were to mentally visualize this principle), so that when people inevitably “attack” them, we don’t feel like the attack was directed at us. This also makes it easier to swap them out if we find better ones, and in turn means that our opinions aren’t what fundamentally defines us, so “hiding” them isn’t tantamount to deception. Rather, we are then primarily defined by how we interact with others. To simply this principle: It isn’t what you think or say, it’s what you do.

Is me adhering to this principle dishonest on my part? I’ll let God decide that. I think that it matters to Him more that I live in harmony with people, though I could be wrong.

But do know that adopting this attitude is very difficult. It took me a lot of painful practice to get to the point that I am at now (and I still have such a long journey ahead). And it just so happens that I subject myself to opinions that I disagree with on a daily basis, not just in discussions with other people, but even through the media that I consume (where some sources are those that often express views that disagree with mine). It physically hurts me, sometimes. I feel a knot in my stomach. I won’t pretend that I’m stronger than other people. I’m not. I often think to myself: “My goodness. That is such a horrible misrepresentation of my opinion!”

And believe it or not...

...that even happens to me in my church.

I generally agree with the tenants and fundamental beliefs of the denomination that I am a member of.

But boy, oh boy, would I be quickly burned at the stake if some of them knew what I actually believe concerning certain topics. lol

(And this includes what I wrote earlier about my gay friend.)

It seems that we’re just not allowed to hold opinions from different camps in one brain anymore.

And this leads me to the next topic:

The appropriation or co-opting of lifestyles and the death of variety

A lot of Christians these days say that the carnivore diet is the best and most “natural” one.

I’m a Christian and I don’t agree with that.

Surprisingly, my denomination happens to be one of the few ones out there that mostly subscribes to veganism.

Unfortunately though (in my opinion), politically conservative Christians (especially the loudest ones on social media) have made the carnivore diet a part of their “brand”. And very many of them do push the idea that vegans are always weak, unhealthy, and leftist.

In other words: Vegan = left wing. Carnivore = right wing.

If this sounds dumb to you, then welcome to my club. I also think that it sounds dumb.

Yes, I’m vegan because of my religion... and also because of the environment, animals, and my health.

And speaking of the environment, yes, I think that humanity has a (God-given) duty to steward the earth, and I think that green energy is the technology that we should invest in.

Crazy! Who would think that Christians, who believe something as ridiculous as the idea that God created the earth in seven days, and told the first two humans He created to take care of a garden, could be environmentalists? lol

One attitude that I think contributes more to the polarization of politics than almost anything, is this co-opting or appropriation of lifestyles, interests, and political opinions, by the two tribes. And what saddens me the most about this, is that I have observed that many people “choose their tribe”, and then end up subscribing to all of the other ideas of that tribe, even those they disagree with, just because the tribe demands complete loyalty to its entire ideological program.

Just to give an example in the category of “interests”, I find it astonishing how unwelcome Christians are in the FOSS community. Believe it or not, I would love for FOSS to grow and become mainstream. I think that decentralized, free, and open-sourced software would benefit us all. My denomination branched off from Protestantism, which may deserve criticism for a lot of things, but not for being closed to technological and openly-shared innovations, as printing Bibles in the vernacular (German) was central to the popularization of the printing press. So, I don’t think that my religious beliefs make me somehow incompatible with open-sourced software. Would a FOSS app get offended that I believe that its was “code” was “programed” by a “higher intelligence”, and that it didn’t evolve out of the silicon and copper by pure chance? lol

This “death of ideologically diversity”, if I may call it that, is what led us to this situation where, in the words of the guys from The Juice Media, we are left with all but two tribes to plead our loyalty to: Shit™ and Shit Lite™. lol

And that leads me to the next topic:

How I vote

I don’t.

I voted once, in a parliamentary election, not long after I turned 18 in 2007.

Side note: I’m still a babe with regards to politics, but I was a political zygote when I became old enough to legally vote. What is holding us back from using our much neglected systems of education to teach students about how our political systems work? How they can participate in politics? How they can obtain information about politicians and parties? Call it “Political Literacy 101” if you will.

Either way, I never voted again. A big reason is simply because I began to spend more time abroad than at home when I turned 22. And since I’m 29, I’ve been permanently living abroad, with no plan of returning to the absolute dumpster fire that the Portuguese political landscape has been in the last few years.

But another big reason is just because... I don’t “who” to vote for.

First of all, it seems that every party that makes it into power, is ultimately caught in multiple scandals. And given enough time, every politician will turn out to have done something deeply corrupt and/or outright illegal. Very many of them get blatantly away with it and laugh in our faces.. We keep “voting for change” (which the candidates and parties promise), but after the victory celebrations are over, it’s back to the status quo, or maybe even a step deeper into the mire.

Furthermore, no politician or party seems to represent me. Until 2022, in Portugal, there was a Christian, center-right party (they would have characterized themselves as such) named CDS-PP. But that year, they lost all remaining seats they had (and that after being existing since 1974, founded right after the military coup that returned democracy to the country). Whats particularly unfortunate about this, is that an actually dangerous, populist, far-right party rose to replace them. CDS-PP are kind of back now, but in a way that makes them even less representative for me.

You will tell me that abstaining from voting is the same as casting my vote with the powers that be. But I have also heard from many people that casting my ballot in favor of a small and independent party, has the exact same effect. The big parties are “guaranteed to win”, so any other option is not a “useful vote” (which is an expression that I dislike, and is, as I understand it, what we call a “strategic vote” in Portugal) So, as much as the system seems to encourage (or at least, not be effective enough to prevent) the polarization of the isle, it would seem to me that the voting habits of the population do exactly the same. It would require a large majority of us to collectively agree to refuse to vote for the two, primary, ruling parties, for any real shakeup to occur. But how can we achieve that agreement?

I live in Latvia, and it isn’t a perfect system either, but the people here do one thing right: They have and vote for a lot of small parties that hold seats in their parliament, giving voters a real choice and forcing politicians to compromise, compromise, compromise when forming coalitions. Again, I’m politically ignorant, so correct me if I’m wrong, but in theory, this should make it more likely that moderate policies end up the ones that are enacted, right? Which in turn should displease every citizen only slightly, rather than pleasing either only one half or the other.

I brought up The Juice Media YouTube channel before, and I’d like to recommend to you this very funny three-minute-long video, that is as much a parody as it is highly informative, where the creators warn Australians about how the two-party system is about to become entrenched in Aussie politics. The video lists the large number of alternative minority parties that can be voted for, and how the red and blue dinosaurs currently in power are working to use the system to make it impossible for any of them to get a seat at the table. Talk about kangaroo politics! lol

I don’t think that packing a parliament (or the chambers of the US Congress for that matter) with many small parties, is what is going to solve all of these problems. I know that. And unfortunately, in a way, the polarization has even affected how parties form coalition governments, creating all sorts of chaos. We’ve seen that recently in my country, as well as in Spain and France. I haven’t been paying too much attention, but it seems to be an issue in Germany as well. If you happen to come from any of these countries, or know a lot about their political systems, then please do enlighten me. This is all to say, that I acknowledge that coming up with a better system is a complex and complicated matter.

Still, I cannot imagine that having lots of small parties in an assembly would be worse than what we have in the United States at the moment, which despite all the talk about “checks and balances”, seems to be a popularity contest that is an eternally swinging pendulum of “winner takes all” politics.

And by the way: I say “we”, because when the United States “sneezes”, the rest of the world catches a cold. My lungs have been coughing up “tariffs” lately. It’s rather painful. I think that, as important as it is to respect the sovereignty of a nation’s electorate, we also need to stop pretending that any countries’ politics are completely inconsequential to their neighbors, or worse, the rest of the world. They’re not, and the US is a particularly heavy link in this chain. In other words, as “apolitical” as I feel these days, politics affect me nonetheless.

Can we accept the outcome of elections?

And that leads me to my last point.

I would like to see an utopia where those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life, live together in harmony, and don’t clash with each other.

But inevitably, they will. A woman will pregnant and want an abortion, and someone close to her (or the state) will want to prevent that.

And this is just one example where the freedoms and right of one group can clash with the freedoms and rights of another group.

So, sadly, I have to admit defeat. I don’t think that we can reverse the political polarization. I also don’t think that we can prevent more civil wars. They have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. I just can’t imagine what thing could possibly make everyone stop for a moment and think: “Hey, maybe it would be best to just let others live however they choose to”, and then cooperate to build a system that somehow, magically makes that a reality.

And even if one cohesive ideology could conquer every single human mind and take control of the world (which would be a horrible idea, but for the sake of the argument, let’s imagine it for a second), I’m willing to bet that, given human nature, sooner or later, some new kind of division would come out of it. A good illustration of this are episodes 12 and 13 of the 10th season of South Park. They were hilarious, for various reasons (including for making fun of the launch of the Nintendo Wii), but the overarching story in those two episodes is that, in the future, there are only atheists. They, however, broke off into three factions and started a war because... well... I won’t spoil it, but you can watch it for yourself in the 13th episode, between 16m 45s and 17m 55s. It’s hilarious.

I try to act in a manner where I accept the outcome of elections, and more broadly speaking, the societal shifts that go along with them. I’ve been a Christian since around 2004, and the world has only become more hostile to my kind, but I just move on with my life. At the same time, I try to avoid to cause any disturbance to anyone around me, especially those who associate my religion with painful lived experiences.

But even the Bible warns me (or at least, that’s how I interpret it), that a day will come, when I will be persecuted for my beliefs, particularly “keeping the Sabbath holy”, or said differently, refusing to work on Saturday. And I have felt that this is a real and growing danger, as it’s becoming the norm for businesses and companies to expect their employees to work on Saturday. I have been unemployed for a while now, and part of my difficulty in finding a new job is that no employer wants to give me Saturday off (I should add that I always offer to work from Sunday to Friday). This state of things is partly due to politics. But there was once a group of people that was persecuted and killed, and they happen to also refuse to work on Saturdays, so it’s not impossible that something like that might happen again. And if that day comes, then... well... I’ll take the bullet.

It worries me that people are increasingly dissatisfied with election results, unwilling to accept them and move on, and that more and more are openly (or secretly) calling on those around them to start a violent uprising. J6 may have been a foretaste of that. We also saw the “mostly peaceful protests” that took place in 2020. More recently, a bullet missed its intended target by one inch, preventing what could become a complete catastrophe (though causing the electorate to vote for a different one). I would like to the Americans among us to take head, because we saw how absolutely brutal a civil war can be, when all the weapons at your disposal are primitive firearms. So imagine what a civil war would like with very effective, modern firearms. I’d rather not imagine that. So, shouldn’t we take a deep breath and turn the heat down?

If you have made it this far, you’re a trooper.

I want to give a special thanks to the kind people maintaining Tildes for allowing me to participate on here (especially if I’m not banned after posting this, lol).

I can’t wait to read your comments.

Much love from Latvia.

I've been wanting to tell the Tildes community about a favorite podcast of mine, The Film Reroll, an improv. comedy show which plays through your favorite movies as TTRPGs and totally ruins them (their words, I love the show and think the cast is amazing), and would love to hear about any podcasts y'all listen to that you might want to recommend to others!

Question is as stated in the title. How did you learn to read?

I am re-listening to the great podcast, "Sold a Story" and it has prompted a lot of questions to myself, and now to others.

So, I'm curious, how did you learn to read and what do you remember about it? I am extra interested in people who have learned from "non-phonetic" languages, and also have a new curiousity about French, which I consider a language that does not match the spelling of its spoken and written words (if that makes sense, I'm sure that is my own bias there, as an English speaker).

TLDR: I think that I don’t like Pokémon games anymore because the battle system literally puts me to sleep, I can’t be bothered to “catch them all” all over again, and there’s just nothing else about the mainline games (not even the story or anything) that makes them interesting for me. Anyone else?

Disclaimer: If you love Pokémon, then I’m very happy for you. Seriously. This isn’t a rant about the games being bad (not even the modern ones). I’m not casting judgment on the quality of the games nor the people who buy and play them. This is 100% about my astonishment at how much my personal taste for video games has changed.

I decided to share my thoughts on this matter with all of you here to see if anyone has had a similar experience.

I only got into Pokémon in the year 2000, I think. I still managed to play Red, Blue, and Yellow before Gold, Silver, and Crystal released. Out of these six, the only one I never owned was Gold. But on top of that, I played the ever-loving heck out of Stadium 1 and 2. There is a non-zero chance that I invested more than 1,000 hours into all of these games combined. I even got my mother hooked on the Stadium games. It was wild.

Then gen III rolled around, and while I did get a GBA, I somehow never managed to buy a single new Pokémon game. My guess is that I was too busy fawning over all of the crazy, weird, and fun games that I was playing on the Gamecube, two of which I spent a lot of time on: Animal Crossing and Sonic Adventure 2: Battle. So, I totally missed out on Ruby, Sapphire, Emerald, FireRed and LeafGreen. I also never played Colosseum or XD: Gale of Darkness.

I returned to the series on the NDS, with Diamond, which was a lot fun (at least I don’t remember anything negative about it), but that was close to the beginning of a period in my life where I played almost no video games, let alone Pokémon.

This may sound silly, but what I enjoy about Pokémon (or at least, what I enjoyed about gen I and II), was the adventure. Does that make sense? I loved exploring the world, befriending six “cute” creatures (I always was more interested in carrying the more animal and pet-like ones in my party), becoming the very best, like no one ever was, defeating bad guys, and learning more about the lore surrounding certain legendary Pokémon.

Side note: I did try to catch them all, but Celebi completely eluded me.

It wasn’t until like... I think, 2023? That I went back to the series and played Emerald (through cough cough “alternative” means), and forced myself to plow through the game until I beat the League. And I mean “forced”. It wasn’t like the game was bad, and I enjoyed the adventure to some extent (though the story didn’t quite “grip” me), but the grinding ground my gears (pun intended).

Yes. I had to grind. I can’t remember what my team was and at what level they were (I think around 55 each) when I reached the League, but I remember grinding at the exit of the Victory Road to raise their levels because my first attempt failed. (It’s definitely, at least partly, a skill issue. lol) I had, however, been grinding a little bit before each gym already, and whenever I did, I had to listen to podcasts or YouTube videos in the background or whatever, because I would literally fall asleep while doing it. lol

Most recently I tried HeartGold. Before that, I tried FireRed and White, and with neither of them, I managed to get past the third or fourth gym before I just couldn’t deal with the tedium anymore and gave up.

Fast-forward to this month of April.

I’ve decided to focus on GCN games, since there are many that I never had the chance to play. I replayed Metroid first (needed to scratch that itch) and had fun. Yesterday I finished Paper Mario TTYD, which was a dream come true. Been waiting 20 years to play it. I absolutely loved it.

But today I tried Pokémon Colosseum.

And... I think that I want to give up. lol

I just can’t anymore.

I think that I have become an Old Person™. lol Like, something about the battle system just literally puts me to sleep. I’m not kidding you. I was playing the game today, and whenever I had to battle, I began to feel Drowzee (pun intended).

I played for a little over an hour and then checked Bulbapedia, only to look at the list of “snatchable” Pokémon and think to myself: “Do I think that the ‘adventure’ in this game will be interesting enough to keep me grinding through all these many battles?”

My hearts tells me no. I don’t think that it will.

So, after all these years, I have to sadly conclude that I just don’t like Pokémon anymore. I can’t deal with the battle system. It’s too tedious for me. I also can’t deal with the grind of catching and raising them. Neither the adventures nor the stories catch my interest anymore. It feels all too repetitive, like I’m playing the same game over and over.

But do you know what the irony is? I have replayed Crystal a few times over the years—maybe a handful. It feels easy to pick up somehow. I still grind, but the grind doesn’t grind me down. And I am willing to bet that I could pick it up today and play it all the way to the end without getting tired. It must be the nostalgia. I don’t know how else to explain it otherwise.

I don’t think that my machine can handle playing gens VI to current through “alternative means”, so those are completely out of the question for now, but I have been following the franchise close enough that I feel skeptical that even those would entertain me.

So, I guess that’s it. I don’t like Pokémon anymore. It’s just a game but it somehow feels so tragic. lol

And I’m not sure what other GCN game to pick up instead. Any suggestions? Here are the ones that I have played so far:

• 1080° Avalanche
• Animal Crossing
• Burnout
• Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance
• The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
• The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
• Luigi's Mansion
• Mario Party 4
• Metroid Prime
• Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
• Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door
• Pikmin
• Resident Evil 4
• Sonic Adventure 2: Battle
• Star Fox Adventures
• Super Mario Sunshine
• Super Smash Bros. Melee

I’m mostly interested in 3D, third-person action adventure games—basically singleplayer games where you take control of a main character. I’m open to try out other genres though.

I have been listening to the PreHistory Podcast, written and produced by an actual academic archaeologist. I enjoy the rigor and specificity but i’m having trouble finding similar content I like, especially without the promotions and ads and fan service. I know that in the age of social media personalities such dry content is hard to come by.

I particularly enjoy ancient history, but feel free to offer other podcasts that feature people who have mastered their discipline and have found clear, effective, and even entertaining ways of sharing it. Thanks!

Most of my time in any given day is spent sleeping (eight hours), working (nine hours, plus another one or two for commuting), chores (maintaining the home, personal hygiene, etc.), and spending time with my wife (and occasionally with friends and family).

This means that I don’t have a lot of “spare time”. I maybe get one or two hours a day, and a few more on Saturdays and Sundays.

I often feel anxious and depressed about this inescapable reality. I have a lot of projects and hobbies that I would like to fill my spare time with, but not enough for all of them.

Years ago, I began to try to reframe the circumstances of my life in my mind in order to prevent a complete mental collapse. I tell myself that this life is finite, that I will never be able to have all the experiences that I would like to, and that’s OK. I can live with that reality. And I should instead, focus my energy on dedicating myself to the projects and hobbies that I absolutely do not want to miss out on.

I still struggle to stick to just a few of those, because there are so many (especially creative) activities that I enjoy. I regularly go through cycles of taking on too many of these, then becoming overwhelmed because I don’t have enough time for each, then cutting out most of them to focus on the ones that I want to prioritize, and repeating the cycle.

Today, I have reached the part of that cycle where I will cut some of them out.

Whenever I do that, it really helps me to take inventory of what those activities are, so that I can stay focused, and delay taking on more or new ones until I am satisfied with where I got with my current ones.

So, here are the projects and hobbies that I want to spend my spare time on, starting today:

• Reading one hour every morning (been diligently doing that since January 1). Two books I am reading through the year. A third book I read as much as I have time left (have read more than ten this year already). I also occasionally read some blogs on Bear Blog.
• Writing on two blogs (one daily, one occasionally), as well as writing my book.
• Occasionally chatting on a forum, Tildes, and four Discord guilds.
• Taking one daily walk while listening to a podcast.
• Occasionally watching YouTube videos (I am—coincidentally—subscribed to exactly 50 channels, almost all of which have an upload schedule of one video every other week or slower).

What are your activities?

Side notes: The list above is a summary. My list is a lot more precise, to help me focus. Also, I’m currently unemployed, but before I quit my last job, I had actually been working almost without interruption for several years. My day-to-day routine back then was exactly as I described it in the beginning of this post.

So this may be weird, I just got a new set of pixel buds pro 2 and they work great, except if I'm not playing audio on my phone they frequently disconnect and reconnect from my bluetooth - I can tell because I can hear the tones. But if I'm playing a podcast or YouTube video, no issue. Phone is a Pixel 7a and it doesn't do this with my old A buds, my car, etc. haven't tried pairing the buds to anything else yet.

I've updated firmware, restarted everything, checked settings, turned off the adaptive sound, with no change. Help?

The word "content" in this text means works that you can consume for knowledge or for entertainment, e.g. books, films, TV-shows, video games, scientific articles, podcasts, poems, music, all of those Youtube-videos you have saved for later never to be watched again, etc...

With streaming services, apps and tools becoming worse and harder to use while also increasing their subscription costs more often to appease investors, AI is taking over not only our future jobs but also our hobbies and passions, i.e. the very thing we were supposed to be able to make more of. Sponsored as well as subtle user-made advertisements are infesting site after site, but increasingly, the interactions these ads get also come from bots. Social media is no longer a place where I “trick” my peers into thinking I had a wonderful weekend - when in reality it was mediocre at best - but instead a battleground of different actors trying to inflate numbers for short-term gain. It feels like no film, no video game or book, no service, no image, no friend nor foe on the internet exists anymore for anything other than a fleeting moment of transactional gain. Nothing seems trustworthy anymore. Nothing seems genuine.

With the most recent YouTube video by Technology Connections (“Algorithms are breaking how we think”, 22. February 2025) that talks about “algorithmic complacency” and how people today let themselves be fed curated content instead of finding the content they are interested in, it highlights a shift I have felt the past year but never have had the words to express clearly, which is the following: People don’t care anymore.

And why should they? It’s much easier to come home from a long school or work day and just get cheap dopamine without having to put brain power into searching for entertainment. After all, I’m not trying to learn anything right now.

Now, I know I am preaching to the choir on this site. I don’t need to tell you of the bad effects today’s customs and practices on the internet will have on us and especially the next generation, both short-term and in the long run, but the worst one I can see is not back pain, short-sightedness, decline of web-searching skills or even gullibility. It is apathy.

Propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, manipulation, advertising, reaching voters, gaining consumers, decreasing attention spans and a willingness to pay more as long as no additional effort is required on my part. Escaping this fate seems to require an ever-increasing supply of vigilance and effort. The thought arises: What exists behind us?

Now, this might seem nonsensical. We all love to go back to older things from time to time. Stuff from previous generations has always intrigued us. But I am asking you, have you given any thought to the mind-boggling amount of content out there that has already been made? Think about all the books, movies, music, video games - although all this most probably was made with profit in mind, it was still made by people who chose to make it because they could.

The other side of the coin is realizing how small a portion all of this represents, when compared to the amount that has been lost to time, in one way or another. Why then, does it seem like the minuscule amount of content we have left from times gone is not treated with any respect at all? Why are alternatives to modern content taken from us just because they do not entail profit? Libraries have fever books, video games are taken offline, free software starts selling your data or making the free version have big restrictions, and then there is of course the whole case of The Internet Archive. I have even had to sail the seven seas to get ahold of books that don’t come in a format that confines them to a specific, paid app. This last part is seemingly becoming the only way of accessing a whole lot of stuff nowadays, which is a shame.

In essence, as archives and physical media die, we look to the corporations of today to satiate our craving for quality content, and in so doing, we alienate ourselves from our uniqueness and our soul. Why read a boring book when this streaming service is constantly getting new movies? Why make art when AI can make it for me if I ever need it?

It is precisely for these reasons that we need to keep a steady grip of the very thing that makes us human: our interest in creating. It is good for the mind, for the body, for the personality, for the diversity.

Thus, this is an argument for - or rather, a call to action to - spending time with content that was not made for one-time use, but rather, content that respects the time you put into it, be it book, film or game, not forgetting to let yourself be inspired and expressing yourself in the process.

Heretofore, I have held the idea that, 1)Russia is a despotic aggressor, 2)Ukraine is largely innocent holder of resources and land, and 3)Ukraine is largely winning due to a combination of pluck and western supplies.

But I heard a recent podcast, however, that caused me to question my line of thinking. The podcast was Chapo Trap House* and they had guest podcasts hosts War Nerd or something, who seem to have some expertise in the slavic world. And they presented a very different narrative. Namely, 1)Ukrainians really want the war to end, even if the country loses some land, 2)There’s tons of corruption in the military, as bad as leaders demanding payment from soldiers to avoid deployment to the front lines, 3)There are fascist units in the military, and they shake down the civilians, 4) Zelensky was of a mind to deal with Russia until Biden asked him not to, 5)Russias economy is very resilient and has adapted to sanctions, and 6)Russia has been very adept at neutralizing new western military tech, and 7) there is a conspiracy of silence about Ukrainian casualties. Side note, there may be problematic funding of all the open source intelligence arms, especially bellingcat, by US Governemtnt intelligence interests.

I managed to confirm at least partially one of the objections:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/05/politics/russia-jamming-himars-rockets-ukraine/index.html

But some of the claims seem less strong:

https://kyivindependent.com/a-very-bloody-war-what-is-the-death-toll-of-russias-war-in-ukraine/

Mixed on some of the others:

https://theintercept.com/2024/06/22/ukraine-azov-battalion-us-training-ban/

The podcast was a useful reminder, at least, to retain a humility about my beliefs, and that news media is especially suspect in our present moment.

It’s not like I have any power to influence the outcome, but I do still buy into the myth that a responsible citizen retains some degree of information about events around them. My query to tildes is, what’s your narrative about the war, and what sources of information are you drawing upon?

*I’m vaguely aware that there’s somce controversy around these guys. I find the podcast entertaining, however, and they seem to share some of my values about how a sane society would function, and, like this report, they sometimes really challenge my understanding of what I think is going on.

So during covid pandemic, a big issue that I kept hearing about in the news and on the Journal podcast was that the economy is hot which is bad and causes interest rate spikes from the Fed if you are in the U.S. or Bank of Canada if you are in Canada.

tbh, I never fully understood that. we live in a consumerism, materialistic and capitalist society. i thought that people buying non-stop was what corporations and American govt valued, hence why we are hit with ads everywhere we go. and yet it was somehow a bad thing and was causing economic issues?

so I looked into it and came across a reddit post that basically explained it in simplistic terms like this:
the iPhone costs 1,000$. now, if not many people can afford the iPhone cause it's out of budget, what that implies is that not many people have 1,000$ which means that 1,000$ is hard to get which raised the value of the dollar, which is good for the economy.
If a lot of people can afford the iPhone, it means lots of people can afford to spend 1,000$ which means it's not as unique position to be in anymore, to have 1,000$ in spending money which apparently makes it worth less, cause more people have access to such funds.
Moreover, besides lowering the value of the dollar, more people being able to afford the iPhone is apparently also not a tenable situation cause apparently supply for iPhones could not meet the demand if it's suddenly now in so much more demand, so the value of the dollar going lowering is not only bad for the economy, but also has an effect on supply-chain issues.

Now, if I understand correctly, during covid and shortly after, the stimulus checks were given to people, both middle and lower class. the stimulus checks allowed for lower class to be able to afford more basic necessities from what I heard. This also however, also caused middle class people to be able to afford both more basic necessities and also to spend on luxuries (gonna continue with my current example of the iPhone). So the lower and middle class people having more spending power to be able to afford their necessities and maybe splurge a bit on luxuries causes the value of the dollar to go down cause now things are more affordable to people. and the value of the dollar going down causes wall street/the fed to freak the fuck out. and this causes them to raise interest rates, which has a domino effect of causing unemployment which obv leads to less people having spending power which causes a dampening effect on how much people are buying which brings the value of the dollar back up and the Fed is happy again.

I know I have probably oversimplified some parts cause I am not an economics person and God forbid the Journal podcast actually do their job and breakdown how the economy is screwing people so most of what I know comes from online research and what I can glean from the news but is anything I said incorrect?

cause if what I said is correct, that means that whenever the government keeps saying "the economy is fine" in response to people saying the times are tough, I get confused how that's a counterargument from the govt and not actually a subtle confirmation that times are tough for people. cause what it actually means is "the value of the dollar is fine, but the people are hurting cause that is needed for the dollar to be fine"?

This is more of an incoherent chain of consciousness from a lot of the thoughts I've had about being online over the past 20~ years. I welcome discussion and thoughts about the points I make in this post, optimism is appreciated as I've almost none left for this. (For context for the older folks on this forum, I'm not going to be getting into pre-2006 internet as I wasn't around to experience much of it. I know the internet has a very rich and storied past from before that period of time, but the vast vast vast majority of people didn't "get online" until after this period of time)

As we hurtle headlong into 1/4th of the way through the century, I've been looking back on the earlier years of the internet and missing a lot of it. Sure there were a lot of rough edges and problems, but I'd argue that would be true of any period of time for any large group of people. One thing that always stuck out to me in the past was how much the used to reward innovation, creativity, and hard work. Youtube, Twitch, Reddit, even platforms like Twitter and Facebook; they all felt a lot smaller and a lot more approachable for the amateur with some ambition. So many of the success stories you heard from around that era were just seemingly normal guys and gals who had some talent and drive and put in effort and made it big. Obviously there's some confirmation bias there, you don't hear the 1000 stories from the people who tried and failed, but I don't think you can deny that the "barrier to entry" was a lot lower back then in pretty much every field. I've gotten to know the founder of the company I work for, and he started it out of his house with a few friends from college and created what would be considered today to be a pretty basic product, and they managed to turn it into a 200~+ million dollar business in just over 10 years. Most of the stories I've heard are like that, just a guy or a couple guys sitting down and working on something over the course of a few months and striking it big off of it.

Now let's get to the point of this post, to me it feels like those success stories have slowed to a trickle, if not stopped completely. The amount of competition there is in every field is insane. Are you a fairly talented digital artist looking to make a little extra cash on the side? 10-15 years ago, you could easily get commissions for things like Twitch emotes, personal portraits, (drawing furry OCs), etc. Nowadays I don't know a single amateur artist who can find a reliable source of clients who are willing to pay any reasonable amount of money, and this was before AI took over the low hanging fruit for pennies on the dollar.

I'm going to continue to draw on personal experience because that's the only field I feel like I can speak with some authority on. In the Youtube/Twitch scene, being a reasonably skilled video editor used to mean that you could make a decent (if meager) living and build up your reputation by editing for large creators. Editors became known for their styles and even became mini-celebrities in the communities that they were a part of. Now it feels like every large Youtuber/Streamer has a team of faceless, nameless production staff that handle all of the video management, thumbnails, analytics, etc. There's no personality anymore, there's no individuality; you're part of the business, a cog in the machine. The .00001% of people who manage to crawl their way to the top of creating videos or streaming content have hyper-optimized the process so finely that there is quite literally no room for a newcomer to enter the space and attract a crowd.

I'll expand on that last paragraph a bit because I know that its not really 100% true, I see Youtubers and streamers every single day that I've quite literally never heard of before, and they have millions of subscribers; the platforms have never been more diverse. But one thing they all seem to have in common is that the production value and effort required to make their content is 100x the amount it was 10 years ago. You can't just put a handycam on a 10 dollar tripod in your bedroom and make it big on the internet anymore note: this is explicitly ignoring Tik Tok because I have no interest/experience with that platform, and from everything that I've heard, "tik tok fame" is so incredibly fleeting and transient that someone can go from being a celebrity to a nobody literally overnight. It's the tabloid magazines of internet content, just a flash in the pan for the vapid and dopamine-starved. It also seems like one of the most toxic and manipulated platforms out there, quite literally millions of people putting out actual trash into the ecosystem, throwing anything at the wall to see if it will stick. (for anyone who thinks I'm being too harsh on TikTok, I'm referring to the part of the platform that's all astroturfed sponsored trash like "omg check out this new water bottle I found that filters out negative energy in your water before you drink it" and the 1,000s of other scams that infest that godforsaken app. That TikTok rant got a little off-track but it just makes me so frustrated to see how hyper-consumerism, low effort, and morally bankrupt the "creators" of that platform are. It's all about the "grindset" and "hustling to make a quick buck." As long as you get your bag, who gives a fuck right?

To circle back to some more context for why I'm making this post, I'm very active in the freelance/contractor space. A lot of my friends are/were creatives, freelancers, contractors from all sorts of fields; artists, sound designers, voice actors, video editors, website developers, app programmers, audio engineers, etc. I was talking to one of my friends about some of the projects they have been working on recently, and one of them was editing down a podcast for these two hustle-culture bros. The type of people who offer those $5,000 paid online courses on how to make "passive income" online; you know the type, I know you do. And the surprising thing to me was that these guys were actually "successful" they had suckers enrolling in their courses, they were making good money. You want to know what the one of the "hot tips for passive income" that they were using? They made AI generated "product review" videos on Youtube that would scrape Amazon product listings, and put together thousands of automated useless garbage videos a day and pump them onto any platform they could monetize. You ever try to look up a review for a fairly niche product to see if its any good, and all you can find is AI generated trash? Yeah, these are the types of people responsible. They have absolutely no morals, no respect for their audience, they will do anything it takes to make .0001 cents and completely flood the platforms they're on with worthless garbage making it unusable. It's the online equivalent of an industrial factory discharging thousands of gallons of toxic waste into the ocean a day to make a few hundred bucks from some boomers who can't tell that a video is worthless.

I use this as an example because this is happening everywhere, in every field. It's not always AI, its not always worthless trash; but the almost universal truth everywhere I see is that every possible niche online is absolutely packed to the brim with a million other people and bots who will do whatever you do for much less money and time. Competition for human attention and money has completely exponentially skyrocketed and there is quite simply not enough to even begin to go around.

If you stuck around through this rant and it resonated with you in any way, feel free to share your thoughts and opinions below. I ask that you don't just solely comment based on the title without reading at least some of the post. This is definitely coming from a negative headspace and I'm well aware that my personal experience may be skewed, but its so hard not to be cynical and jaded.

I don't know how appropriate this topic will be or how uncomfortable some users will be addressing it. But I noticed a switch online in the usage of previously determined slurs.

When I was a child in the '00s, it was pretty common for people to say the "r-word" as well as refer to things as "gay" whenever they meant stupid or bad. I remember ad campaigns to stop the latter from occurring (one commercial featuring Hillary Duff and another featuring Wanda Sykes). But both of those things went away as we got deeper into the 2010s.

The Obama and, especially, the Trump years were marked by increased progressive language. I do think the turn was in 2016 when using these terms became widely unacceptable. Even two years earlier the hit song Fancy by Iggy Azalea featuring Charli XCX contained the lyric: "That my flow r***** each beat dear, departed."

I think a lot of the hyper-political correctness of 2016 and onwards was a response to the Trump presidency. I think people on the progressive left felt the need to be hyper-vigilant about that. Once the Biden administration happened these rigid beliefs began to relax.

I'll use a few examples of this shift involving a network TV show, to take this conversation into a more concrete real world. Saturday Night Live.

Shane Gillis, a very non politically correct comedian was hired as part of the cast of SNL in 2019. Lorne Michaels hired him to appeal to a more conservative crowd or to at least not be so catering to its liberal demographic. Gillis, who is largely not a conservative, was caught in a scandal following his casting news. Clips from his podcast surfaced of him making fun of Asians and mocking their accents. Gillis was shortly fired.

Fast forward to this year: Shane Gillis hosts SNL. Not only that, in his opening monologue he says the r-word.

Another SNL adjacent example. Matt Healy, lead singer of the 1975, appeared on The Adam Friedland Show podcast. The podcast, originally called Cumtown, is known for its non-PC humor. Healy participated in jokes making fun of Ice Spice and laughed at the host's more racy humor. Scandal surrounded Healy, who was dating Swift at the time, and he was essentially "canceled." Except, he was immediately the musical guest on SNL not long after the scandal (they were the musical spot for Jenna Ortega's episode). If this was 2019, The 1975 likely would not have been invited to be the musical guests, and/or the host of the episode (in this case Ortega) would have been pressured by her PR team to make some sort of post disavowing their inclusion. This didn't happen. In fact this year Jenna Ortega criticized political correctness herself

The last SNL example I wanted to give was in Ariana Grande's recent episode a joke was included where Grande calls someone a pathetic little gay guy, followed by her saying "I meant gay as in stupid and bad" which was very well received on all corners of the internet.

So what happened here? My perception might be warped since in late 2022 I began using the subreddits r/redscarepod and r/theadamfriedlandshow where this type of humor and the usage of these terms was already normal. So it was a little odd to me when these began gaining steam in the outside world.

If it really was just a response to Biden's presidency I feel like we would now be returning to the hyper-political correctness of the 2010s during Trump's administration. But that doesn't seem to be happening.

Maybe political correctness fell out of style, and that will be the case for another five to ten years when it becomes fashionable again.

Title is pretty straightforward I think.

Trying to get my Podcast listening off of Spotify because I just hate their player and UX lately. Also, no ability to add feeds by RSS link.

My daily drivers I spend most of my time on are my iPhone and Macbook Pro. After that, maybe I would listen on my iPad, or my PC that is running both Linux and Windows.