TreeFiddyFiddy's recent activity
-
Comment on A pregnant teenager died after trying to get care in three visits to Texas emergency rooms in ~society
-
Comment on Non-college educated White men used to be ahead in the American economy. Now they’ve fallen behind. in ~finance
TreeFiddyFiddy (edited )Link ParentNo one is saying you're trying to convince anyone of anything and this goes way beyond the scope of Harris' campaign and what her administration could or could not pass (which is pure conjecture...On whether or not it pushes "men" to the right, I mean, I'm not trying to convince "men" to go the left
No one is saying you're trying to convince anyone of anything and this goes way beyond the scope of Harris' campaign and what her administration could or could not pass (which is pure conjecture on your part). This is about an overall trend of unionists who used to vote solidly democrat no longer supporting a party who no longer supports them. I'm also not sure why you're putting men in quotes, they are the relevant demographic for this conversation as they are the ones disproportionately impacted by the loss of manufacturing and disproportionately subscribing to neo-conservative ideals.
Sure, not ALL manufacturing jobs have disappeared, or are going to in the next decade. That's not the point. The point is that the proportion of manufacturing jobs is NEVER coming back.
There will still be positions for skilled labor in the economy, but it isn't the majority and will never be the majority again and that's goodIt was never the majority, at it's peak manufacturing ever only totaled less than 30% of us labor but that's not what you said in your original post anyway, I'd rather not move goal posts and instead stay on the subject of your original post.
There is no developed economy today that has a significant proportion of jobs in manufacturing. Look at Japan
Very problematic here as both the US and Germany still have significant proportions of jobs in manufacturing, if I bothered to look deeper I'm sure I would find other countries as well, and Japan is not a stellar example of economic success that I personally would ever reference in this type of conversation.
Manufacturing? Still dropping like a rock. Services and knowledge work? Rising like a rocket
False. Manufacturing is on a major upswing since it's nadir in 2010, continuing to rise, and still not showing even close to the full effects of the recent infrastructure and manufacturing laws passed by the current administration. Since hitting a low in 2010 and taking Covid out of the picture, manufacturing has continued to add jobs year over year and is projected to continue growing. Speaking more generally about skilled labor, non-manufacturing skilled labor is in dire need of personnel - when plumbers are making six figures it's easy to see how much more value society is placing on them compared to degreed office workers making 75k, no matter how much lip service is given to getting an education. So much of what you're saying is just not supported by the data and is pure conjecture and opinion.
if you're born today, you're not going to have any delusions that you'll make your fortune making cars anymore
Tell that to all the workers who are upskilling from food, services, and retail to work in next generation manufacturing. A sector which is again adding millions of jobs since the revers of its decline. Cars? Maybe not but you'd be a fool to think that manufacturing and trades are not rewarding people economically.
There will still be positions for skilled labor in the economy, but it isn't the majority and will never be the majority again and that's good
Ignoring that it's falsely stated that skilled labor was the majority of jobs in the economy (again, it never has been), you keep saying that it's good that skilled labor continues to decline in favor of unemployable degreed people and service economy jobs that the majority of pay minimum wage but you never explain why it's good. I just don't think it's a really defendable position.
Edit: Edited to make clear that I am not advocating for manufacturing to ever return to it's historic 1960's high of ~26% labor but most experts agree that reestablishing the manufacturing base to around ~20% of labor would be very good for the US economically and strategically and I agree with that general number. US manufacturing is currently at about 10% and rising
-
Comment on Non-college educated White men used to be ahead in the American economy. Now they’ve fallen behind. in ~finance
TreeFiddyFiddy (edited )Link ParentI don't mean to attack you personally, as this is a widely held attitude, but this is exactly the attitude that drives men towards the right. This is the "elitism" that they mean when they talk...- Exemplary
it’s a good and expected thing that the US economy have more college educated workers
Having a significant portion of jobs be ones where the only requirement is a healthy body and a pulse is inevitably going to become a thing of the past
[my emphasis added]I don't mean to attack you personally, as this is a widely held attitude, but this is exactly the attitude that drives men towards the right. This is the "elitism" that they mean when they talk about the Democrats or college educated liberals. I think it's pretty easy to falsify this opinion on economic and societal grounds but that it's worth pointing out that to a very large percentage of the population this opinion and associated rhetoric is outright repugnant.
The effects of the lack of, not just rust belt manufacturing but, all skilled labor are acutely seen in the post-covid world with all the inflation, supply chain disruptions, unaffordability of durable goods, etc. And it is fair to talk about skilled labor in general as the attitude reflected in your post is not limited to the scope of rust belt labor and denigrates all unskilled labor, including the trades.
To talk about rust belt manufacturing, specifically, there are several compelling reasons why it is a huge economic and security disadvantage to lose these industries. Everyone has seen how Covid exposed wide gulfs in the US's self sufficiency and the overnight lack of all essentials and ability to integrate components into finished products. The US was hamstrung without access to medical equipment, automobiles became unaffordable and unobtainable as various components could not be sourced, aircraft manufacturing likewise was deeply impacted, scarcity drove up inflation that we are still dealing with and that disproportionately affects those without college degrees. The idea isn't so much that you want to create all basic medical supplies in your country but that you do want to support at least a smaller fraction of that industry locally so that in prolonged crises you have not completely lost the skills knowledge to perform this manufacturing and that you can also scale up quickly to meet demand. The loss of manufacturing is a national and societal security issue.
These issues go beyond meeting basic goods needs and is reflected in the basic national security industrial policy of all major manufacturing nations. Why do nations so fervently protect their auto industries? There are of course many reasons but a main reason is simply to protect the industrial knowledge base. In the event of war what does a country need most other than boots on the ground? Machinists, production line workers, factories, and infrastructure. The story of World War 2 was about America's ability to quickly pivot to wartime production as factories overnight became weapons factories. The US's ability to not only outfit itself and mobilize a massive fighting force but to also supply all of its allies is what ended up winning the war.
In the US's pivot to confront China, the country has found itself in dire need of ship production capability but is unable to meet even it's minimum needs because of the gutting of heavy manufacturing. The people skilled and knowledgeable enough to build the ships are nowhere to be found as generational knowledge has not been passed on. Shipyards are all closed up and the attempt to meet production goals is now sequestered to two shipyards in the whole country. This is only one, highly specific, scenario where real-world consequences are being seen from our lack of manufacturing ability and the associated knowledge and existing worker base contribute to but we don't need to limit the scope only to military supply, you can already see it in utilities, food processing, almost everything you need that isn't a service or knowledge work.
Aircraft production, auto production, weapons production, energy grid components, heavy machinery, steel production, I could go on, are all examples of classic manufacturing that are not only direly connected to a country's strategic self-sufficiency but (outside of steel manufacturing) still bring in huge economic returns both in profits and in the maintaining of infrastructure.
When you think of human labor as a resource, you want to maximize its efficiency, and for humans, in the end, that’s our heads
Again, this comes off as very elitist and feeds into the narrative that a college degree is more valuable and desirable than working with your hands. We could go into degree inflation, educational attainment as class signaling and mobility, overproduction of elites, overeducation of the workforce, increasing student debt, misallocation of capital required to run an over productive educational system, etc., to talk about why having such a large highly educated populace might counterintuitively be undesirable but it might be better to just focus on what human efficiency and "using our heads" really mean. In the context of the quote it's referring to working in a service and knowledge economy vice a skilled labor economy but that ignores that our heads are more than responsible for this type of thinking and that efficiency also extends to our ability to manipulate with our appendages, conceive of things more in the physical space than theoretical or abstract, or work efficiently within narrow proscribed framework of something procedural, i.e. skilled labor.
Not everyone's end state of achievement or inherent abilities are to work in abstract knowledge or service fields. Some people don't have that ability but have an amazing ability to work with their hands that someone sitting in an office might not ever be able to match. Letting these people maximize their particular efficiencies adds more to the economy than having them work at McDonalds or barely achieving at an office job that maybe just isn't a part of their inherent skillset. An economy and society is made up of a diversity of skills and natural talents and the economy and the good and expected thing would be to maximize the value of all participants whether in manufacturing, service, knowledge, trades, etc.
This also ignores the massive societal destabilization and economic losses incurred by leaving these people behind. What the left traditionally labels as racism, white male supremacy ideals, and anti-intellectualism can, for most of the average-joe population, be traced back to feeling unneeded, undesired, unskilled, and being left economically behind. A lot of these people aren't actually racist but immigrants coming in to take the jobs you used to do because they don't pay a lot due to underinvestment in favor of the service economy becomes a very easy scapegoat and quickly inflammatory when you're being left behind in almost every metric that contributes to life satisfaction and happiness. A lot of swing states find themselves in former manufacturing hotbeds and it should be recognized that this is a very important constituency that should be catered to in order to divert their support away from Republicans. These are people whose cultural attitudes and personal abilities are suited for handwork and they aren't magically going to go away with time or by making universities tuitionless or by destroying the manufacturing industry, these people will always exist because that's just human nature and we need to find ways to keep them valuable in our society.
Having a significant portion of jobs be ones where the only requirement is a healthy body and a pulse is inevitably going to become a thing of the past
Then to return to this quote completely ignores the rust belt and manufacturing renaissance that we're seeing thin the US at this very point in time. Biotech, green energy, robotics, electronics, and advanced polymers are all examples of next generation manufacturing that are finding a niche in the US and starting to change the lives of all those people who only have a healthy body and a pulse to work with and actually won't be easily offshored in the near-term because advanced manufacturing requires a basic level of education that is not readily provided in many poorer offshore manufacturing countries.
Saying that it's good and expected that the US economy rely more on college educated workers (especially when we already don't have enough jobs to absorb them all) is a tacit endorsement of that system over skilled labor. Saying that having a significant portion of jobs be ones where it only requires a healthy body and pulse cast a wide net beyond manufacturing into all skilled and unskilled labor, it's not an apples and oranges argument. Saying that all workers born in that economy will be retired or dead is tantamount to saying that no one is coming to replace them, which completely ignores the exciting economic developments happening all over the Midwest right now.
Knowledge and education are good but are not the end all be all. Manufacturing is good and desired. Trades work is good and desired. A person can contribute to society and the economy more than just on the basis of their ability to obtain a university diploma and they are just as worthy and desired as someone sitting in an office.
-
Comment on Is there a way to hide or otherwise opt out of always seeing votes? in ~tildes
TreeFiddyFiddy LinkI'm wondering if there's been previous discussion on the possibility of just removing votes entirely from Tildes? I could imagine it increasing comment qualityI'm wondering if there's been previous discussion on the possibility of just removing votes entirely from Tildes? I could imagine it increasing comment quality
-
Comment on The Electoral College is bad in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy Link ParentI think we've both made our points but there are a few inaccuracies I'd like to address, since they partially misconstrue what I said. A republic is a form of government where the people or their...I think we've both made our points but there are a few inaccuracies I'd like to address, since they partially misconstrue what I said.
Indeed, a few of those Constitutional Amendments exactly undermine your contention that the United States is better off as a republic.
A republic is a form of government where the people or their elected representatives control power and not an autocrat or king. Nothing in the constitution undermines that the US is a republic, this must either be a fatal misunderstanding of the amendments cited or a misunderstanding of what a republic is. Either way I never said the US was a Republic period, I stated that the US is an elected representational republic. Nothing about who was allowed to vote when or who elects senators changes that fact, which is a fact while America being referred to as an "experiment," while being true is not a fact. There is a difference.
17th Amendment ensured that Senators are elected by popular vote
Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with my argument so I don't see why it's brought up but without digressing too far, the 17th amendment was a big mistake and caused more problems than the one it was trying to fix
Form[s] a deliberative body of experts to elect the best candidate in line with the will of the general populace
I never said this and you've even marked where you edited the quote itself. The actual quote is:
I look back on the intentions set forth by the creation of the electoral college and largely agree with them: ... Forming a deliberative body
I never claimed our current Electoral College system is a deliberative and contemplative body. In fact, I don't believe it is. I'm going to assume that you misread what I wrote and that it was not intentional.
With respect to the electoral college, in the majority of states it is required that electors vote for the candidate for whom they pledged to vote
Most states impose mere fines for being a faithless elector and in fact there have already been a few examples of this happening within recent memory, there is no actual force that can compel the electors to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, an elector can still vote his or her conscience regardless of what the state law says.
Can you please give me some examples of positive action i.e. the government forcing people through law where a majority wasn't present?
This question was speaking on government majorities and force in general and not about the Electoral College or elections. It was in response to your previous comment as well as mine having widened the field of question beyond the scope of the electoral system in the US. In any case, even if we narrow it to elections: Only four elections were confirmed to have ever been overridden by the Electoral College, not five, and bringing up votes previous to when we had universal suffrage has nothing to do with the fact that the electorate was the electorate despite who was allowed to vote. It changes the argument 0% when discussing how the electoral college functions.
And this is before considering how Senate Republicans have disproportionate representation in the government despite representing a significantly smaller portion of the population (in the 2022 election, 36% less [1]), as well as how that disproportionality propagates to a disproportionality in the composition of the federal judiciary.
This is a very telling statement that reveals a deep misunderstanding on constitutionality and the federal government as a whole. Attacking the equal representation of the senate, while a worthy debate, cannot be separated from the existence of the US itself. The entire basis of the creation of the US is that states would receive equal representation, without that there would be no US today. So important was this that the constitution specifically forbids any amendment that would change the equal representation of the Senate, you can literally amend anything in the US constitution except for that one thing. To even talk about reforming the senate we're discussing drafting an entirely new constitution and form of government. While you are correct that the senate is not representational population-wise it is fully fairly representational state-wise and the senate itself is made to represent state governments, not the people, so any claim that there is a lack of majority in the senate is not only offset by the fact that the senate does not work unilaterally but also that the senate by definition is equally weighted - as it should be.
In your words, the electoral college is a "deliberative" and "contemplative" body meant to protect us
Again, I never said this
That is the exploitation I am referring to
That is not exploitation. The electorate is the electorate, and the electoral college is the system it is. Taking a wholly neutral stance on the issue: the system works completely as intended and subsequently modified, either you have the votes to win in the Electoral College or not. No one is exploiting the system, they are simply acting within it. The system sucks, I agree, but I find most fault with the winner-takes-all provisions and think that the immediate conclusion to eliminate the system rather than reform it are shortsighted but even as much as the system sucks as it currently is, no one is exploiting it
-
Comment on Moldova narrowly votes to secure path toward EU membership after accusing Russia of interference in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy Link ParentI agree to end this conversation because of course it isn’t going anywhere but: This is putting words in my mouth and being uncharitable with assumption of intent. I purposely did not address you...I agree to end this conversation because of course it isn’t going anywhere but:
I genuinely cannot believe that you have the gall to insult me by claiming I don't have a nuanced take on abortion based solely on my belief that the amendment the Ohio Republicans tried and failed to pass was undemocratic.
This is putting words in my mouth and being uncharitable with assumption of intent. I purposely did not address you in that sentence where I did purposely directly address you in the second - please note the difference, it was intended. Any assumption of insult or that I was speaking directly to you rather than just expressing my own reluctance to debate abortion publicly, period, is a misreading
Also you were the one who brought the conversation back to Ohio specifically and therefore the US, so we weren’t even talking about Moldova anymore but I can keep track of where the conversation had been steered and by whom
-
Comment on The Electoral College is bad in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy (edited )Link ParentMost, if not all, of the electors are popularly elected.... That's part of the problem with reactionary opinions on the electoral college, a fundamental lack of understanding by the general people...Most, if not all, of the electors are popularly elected....
That's part of the problem with reactionary opinions on the electoral college, a fundamental lack of understanding by the general people on how it actually works.
Also, no election has ever been decided by faithless electors and in the whole history of the United States 99% of electors have voted as pledged.
-
Comment on Moldova narrowly votes to secure path toward EU membership after accusing Russia of interference in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy Link ParentI acknowledge your example but I don't want to argue on abortion because people seem unable to take nuanced views on the debate, the fact is that both sides equally view it as tyranny but in...I acknowledge your example but I don't want to argue on abortion because people seem unable to take nuanced views on the debate, the fact is that both sides equally view it as tyranny but in principle I am of course in favor of supermajorities for constitutional amendments. I question whether your stance would be the same had the winners constitutionally enshrined abortion denial with only 57% of the vote or if you support the 2008 constitutional amendment in California, which banned gay marriage, when it only won with 52% of the vote and where now 72% of the population support its legality.
We could both cherry pick cases all day long so lets debate on the merits where constitutional amendments are concerned. Constitutional amendments are reserved for highly consequential matters and with the aim of making them permanent or at lease the intention of them being much more long lasting than simple laws, they also weigh extremely heavy on the ability of the government to act. As we've seen countless times, electorates are fickle and public opinion can rapidly change - having super majority requirements are a balance against people voting based on their moods or outdated political thought. The dangers presented by constitutional amendments being wantonly changed by a simple majority and in the case of Moldova less than 51% of the people! is far outweighed by the stubbornness that requiring 60+% of people to agree to something so consequential presents
-
Comment on Moldova narrowly votes to secure path toward EU membership after accusing Russia of interference in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy Link ParentShould 52% of Britains have been allowed to force the other 48% out of the EU? And now, less than a decade later, 56% of them regret that action and that figure continues to increase. Perhaps if...Should 52% of Britains have been allowed to force the other 48% out of the EU? And now, less than a decade later, 56% of them regret that action and that figure continues to increase. Perhaps if the thresholds were higher they would have ensured that the people really were committed to that course of action. How arguments for simple majorities to affect such major changes are seen as a good thing seem exceedingly short sighted to me, especially where government force is the subject. The whims of the people hang on their moods and what people allow to sway them from smooth talking politicians and media heads, a course of action should have reasonable backing to, hopefully, stand the test of time or else you end up with situations like Brexit where opinion violently seesaws back and forth over exceedingly short timespans and over matters like political separation where, as we've seen, have enormous consequences for all involved. Constitutional amendments should not be so trivial.
My answer to your question is "yes," but it's not dictating that they should live outside of the EU it's an action to do nothing. Doing nothing is always better than doing something that virtually half of your country disagrees with. It's the same argument I would use if the choices had been either join the EU or join Russia but that wasn't the choice.
-
Comment on The Electoral College is bad in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy Link ParentI think that's a hard position for me to accept as the entire United States government was created on the basis explicitly not to be democratic. It's a cliche at this point but...the United States...I think that's a hard position for me to accept as the entire United States government was created on the basis explicitly not to be democratic. It's a cliche at this point but...the United States is an elected representational republic, not a democracy and this system was explicitly chosen as another link in the checks and balances system. Reducing democratic action certainly does limit populism when slim majorities are unable to use governmental force for tyrannical or other populist purposes. Stopping a slim majority from doing something is not the same as forcing the same constituency to do something, so I'm not seeing how are system as it currently exists is leading to widespread force as you allude to. Can you please give me some examples of positive action i.e. the government forcing people through law where a majority wasn't present?
when it is currently being exploited by the populist tyrant-aspirant
Please explain this, I don't understand how anyone is currently "exploiting" the electoral college system. I've already argued against winner-takes-all but even in that case, either you have the votes or you don't. What exploitation are you referencing?
-
Comment on Moldova narrowly votes to secure path toward EU membership after accusing Russia of interference in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy Link ParentI'd have to argue against that in this context. Not passing a constitutional alignment with the EU is neither an endorsement of alignment with Russia, nor a constitutional amendment aligning...I'd have to argue against that in this context. Not passing a constitutional alignment with the EU is neither an endorsement of alignment with Russia, nor a constitutional amendment aligning Moldova with Russia. It is tyranny of the majority because action has been taken, the opposite is a lack of action. It would only be tyranny of the minority if Moldova were forced to align with Russia against the will of what we can barely call a majority. I'm arguing for no action to take place when an issue is so divisive and how an absence of force can be called tyranny is boggling to my mind.
-
Comment on The Electoral College is bad in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy Link ParentYes, they're contradictory but deliberately so. Direct democracy can be dangerous (i.e. tyranny of majorities or the election of demagogues) so the system was designed that the will of the people...Yes, they're contradictory but deliberately so. Direct democracy can be dangerous (i.e. tyranny of majorities or the election of demagogues) so the system was designed that the will of the people should generally be followed but the electors can override their choice when necessary and after great internal deliberation. I wouldn't choose to use the word contradictory in this case, rather, complimentary.
-
Comment on Moldova narrowly votes to secure path toward EU membership after accusing Russia of interference in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy Link ParentYes, it was a constitutional amendment and what you describe as anti-democratic could just as easily be described as tyranny of the majority - I can think of extremely few instances where 50.5% of...Yes, it was a constitutional amendment and what you describe as anti-democratic could just as easily be described as tyranny of the majority - I can think of extremely few instances where 50.5% of the people should dictate how the other 49.5% live, even when I'm very pro Moldova-EU alignment
-
Comment on The Electoral College is bad in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy LinkI guess I'm one of the few people online who would still advocate for the electoral college. Most of the problems people associate with the electoral college today have to do with winner take all...I guess I'm one of the few people online who would still advocate for the electoral college. Most of the problems people associate with the electoral college today have to do with winner take all systems, plural intentional. The constitution dictates that states will send electors proportional to their congressional representation but that is all, the rest is left up to the states themselves as far as how the run elections, count votes, and allocate electors. In fact, two states still currently divide their electors by the proportion of votes the candidates receive. The solution doesn't need to be to abolish the electoral college but rather to reinstate proportional elector allocation, abolish winner-takes-all systems.
I look back on the intentions set forth by the creation of the electoral college and largely agree with them:
-
Forming a deliberative body of experts to elect the best candidate in line with the will of the general populace
-
Slower and less reactive systems are generally a good balance for governments and while not optimal are arguable better than more reactive systems. A properly administered electoral college could add deliberateness and contemplativeness to elections
-
Giving smaller states a larger voice in the governing of the country as a whole (often derided but I find this is often a misunderstanding of what a federal system is and why it's a good thing)
-
I wish that we could walk back the party ticket system, there is rational as to why the runner up to the election should be the presiding officer of the senate and have the tie-breaking vote
-
The electoral college has been confirmed to have overrode the popular vote only four times in the existence of the US and all of them are attributable to the winner-takes-all systems in place, again the problem does not lie directly with the electoral college
-
Decisive political environments are exactly the times when direct elections are more dangerous and not as desirable
In short, no electoral system is or will be perfect but the long stability of the US does lend credence to the arguments that government systems which are slower acting, more balanced with power sharing, and with circuit breakers in place (separation of powers) to calm the populace and stop any one faction from usurping power are better for the country in the long-term. Of course there are disadvantages to the electoral college but I would argue they are outweighed by the advantages, if the system were correctly administrated and later reforms were reconsidered and repealed
-
-
Comment on Moldova narrowly votes to secure path toward EU membership after accusing Russia of interference in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy LinkI cannot imagine a scenario where it's a good idea to make constitutional amendments based on such a narrow majority win. Sixty-six percent is a much better litmus test to me.I cannot imagine a scenario where it's a good idea to make constitutional amendments based on such a narrow majority win. Sixty-six percent is a much better litmus test to me.
-
Comment on These five tumultuous years in Montreal shaped Kamala Harris in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy LinkThat was a nice little biography. I really appreciated the article referring to Harris as biracial rather than Black or Indian. A lot of coverage, especially of the Obama presidency, always...That was a nice little biography. I really appreciated the article referring to Harris as biracial rather than Black or Indian. A lot of coverage, especially of the Obama presidency, always referred to the first black president and now the first black female president. I'm not trying to diminish their accomplishments or speak for them but as a biracial person myself I couldn't help but flinch every time I heard these pronouncements, the fact is: the US has never had a black president, it had a biracial president and may soon have another.
In my case I don't feel like I'm two single instances of a certain race in one body and I'd wager that most multi-racial people feel the same, I feel like when you mix two or more races you are at the same time those races but also something completely different - talk about isolating in a sense of belonging and racial identity. I don't know how common it is for someone like Obama or Harris to latch on to a Black identity as a form of identifying with and finding inclusion in a larger racial identity, but I do know that when I encounter another person with the same mix as myself or really any biracial person, I feel a kinship that is just not there when encountering a "full-race" person of either of my lines of heritage.
-
Comment on Seven ways to love better in ~life
TreeFiddyFiddy LinkAfter twenty years of his beloved Modern Love column in the New York Times, editor Daniel Jones shares with us the seven most important lessons he's learned about love from nearly 200,000 submissions.After twenty years of his beloved Modern Love column in the New York Times, editor Daniel Jones shares with us the seven most important lessons he's learned about love from nearly 200,000 submissions.
-
Seven ways to love better
17 votes -
Comment on Why do people treat friendships and relationships as two different things? in ~life
TreeFiddyFiddy LinkI think I understand what you're getting at. If we look at it, all relationships exist on a spectrum. From some random guy I pass on the street, to an acquaintance, to a friend, to a best friend,...I think I understand what you're getting at. If we look at it, all relationships exist on a spectrum. From some random guy I pass on the street, to an acquaintance, to a friend, to a best friend, to a partner, and everything in between. What divides them are varying levels of vulnerability, responsibility, romanticism, formality, knowing, etc. Viewed through your prism there is nothing that really separates anyone except for degrees of the above but I think for most people that is too reductive.
We're humans and we like to put labels on things and even though those labels are often imperfect fits they stick because they get enough of the point across to be useful. It's generally accepted that a person owes a friend certain things that they do not owe an acquaintance and culturally we can pretty accurately assume what level of things we would ascribe to different degrees of relationships. For romantic relationships we are generally talking about the highest degrees of vulnerability and responsibility while some other things may depend on the relationship, for example you may know a best friend more than your partner or have certain quirks and inside jokes/knowledge that go deeper than even your own romantic connection.
But why then would some people say they never would date a friend? Because social relations exist on a spectrum but that is not necessarily a flow chart. For the most part, I would never date a single friend because I don't have the romantic or sexual attraction enough to want things to be any more than friends and romantic and sexual attraction are huge parts of partnerships that to me make the two forms entirely distinct and then to go from just dating to an actual partnership you have to add in being able to be vulnerable and take on responsibilities in some form for the person and not everyone even passes that "test."
Most of the time if there is mutual romantic/sexual attraction with an acquaintance you try for a relationship and it either fails or succeeds on its own merits. I've had the rare casual relationship turn into friendships when it was clear we weren't compatible for a relationship and the opposite happens too, when friends realize or just have the opportunity to turn things in a romantic direction. We should never speak in absolutes but I think that most people have general reasons why people are just friends and outside of circumstances we don't really see enough transformations of close friends to relationships for people to readily consider it (note I said close friends).
I see that to you it's a wild concept for people to head in a romantic direction shortly after meeting but that's the reality of how most people who are actively looking for relationships handle things. The entire dating app and places for single people ecosystems exist predicated on the fact that most people looking for romance are looking to exactly do that with someone who is not a friend, likely because for most people friends are either not romantically available or there's no interest there. The majority of partnerships today still form from friends of friends or acquaintances but again, even in those scenarios people are intentionally trying to progress from one end of the spectrum directly to the other.
I guess it's difficult to explain why people treat friendships and relationships as two different things other than to say that for the vast majority of people they certainly are very distinct things
-
Comment on The rise of the right-wing tattletale in ~society
TreeFiddyFiddy LinkCompletely setting aside any moral or political arguments over abortion or transgender issues, the article illustrates how chilling and terrifying a government regime's assaults on free speech can...Completely setting aside any moral or political arguments over abortion or transgender issues, the article illustrates how chilling and terrifying a government regime's assaults on free speech can be and how they realistically act to stifle free discourse. This should serve as a warning against any administration, left or right, who imposes thought crimes or impinges on free speech.
It looks more likely that the doubling of US maternal mortality is actually due to the way the US has transitioned to counting the statistic and that other countries are likely underreporting their maternal deaths.
I acknowledge that there are health disparities in the US between economic and racial classes that need to address but seeing this myth of maternal death disparity paraded out by Europeans (and Americans as well) to show how terrible US is has started getting old. A lot of people who have never either lived in the US, in the case of other Westerners, or abroad, for native born Americans, don't know how nice the US can actually be compared to other western nations. Of course, there are always pros and cons and I'm starting to digress here anyway.
This seems really unfitting for a website like what Tildes is supposed to be, we shouldn't use malice towards each other in our comments on this site but misusing reporting tools could be equivalent. My understanding is that fair, open, and polite discourse are to be encouraged on this site. Politics can get people excited, I'm guilty of this on this site myself, but let's not encourage directly abusing the labels button to lazily show either support (Exemplary) or disagreement (Malice) with someone's comment.
What I really want to say about this comment is that I don't understand why charities are not already set up to assist people without the means to move to more abiding states. Although, people moving states for political reasons may be increasing polarization in the US and you are correct that people should be safe wherever it is they live and expect doctors to treat medical emergencies without fear of reprisals outside of malpractice. For the sake of argument: A friend and I were talking about the Grapes of Wrath on Saturday evening and I'm reminded that people can and do move even when faced with having very little means. I wonder why Americans used to be more willing to move and why we now seem to be frozen in place as American mobility has reached record lows.