As part of a weekly series, these topics are a place for users to casually discuss the things they did — or didn't do — during their week. Did you accomplish any goals? Suffer a failure? Do nothing at all? Tell us about it!

As part of a weekly series, these topics are a place for users to casually discuss the things they did — or didn't do — during their week. Did you accomplish any goals? Suffer a failure? Do nothing at all? Tell us about it!

As part of a weekly series, these topics are a place for users to casually discuss the things they did — or didn't do — during their week. Did you accomplish any goals? Suffer a failure? Do nothing at all? Tell us about it!

So, I have some crap lying on the floor. Not crap in the sence that it goes straight to recycling, just lots of tidbits which I don't exactly know what to do with; semi-sorted papers, notebooks, various VR gear, some books which I don't really have room for in my bookcase, some folders where some of the papers should probably go into, my laptop, a stone which I guess I use for weightlifting except I forget to do that, and when I see all this stuff, my brain just shortcircuits.

So I decided that, okay, I can just ignore this and try tidying up this shelf which I had tried to make into a sort of cabinet of curiosities but which over time had degenerated into a bit of mess; a LCD game, the box to said LCD game, vintage headphones, vintage phone, retro Nokia mobile, beach glass, fossils, various stones, some mess which doesn't really belongs here, a cat skull (I think) ... and of course, the same thing happened. My brain just said nope, too much to deal with.

I know there are ways to go about it. If getting my apartment in a habitable state is too much, I can ignore all of it and just focusing on one room. If my coding project seem to overwhelming, I can decide on a alpha milestone to work towards and based on that make a bucket list of the tasks and start with the most basic one, and if the first one is too overwhelming, split it up into sub-tasks. So there are some tried-and-true ways to deal with it.

But for the first time, I started to wonder what exactly goes on with the brain here? Why does something consisting of a relatively small number of sub-tasks seem so overwhelmingly hard? Is it like that for everyone, does it have a name, what?

I'll try to keep it short. I'm not satisfied with the way I'm trying to contribute to the betterment of humanity and the planet. I want to contribute to my local community, but because of political and health reasons, I can't do that.

My relevant strong points are that I can analyze, synthesize, and write well (have been praised for them in professional academic settings). But the suggestions don't have to be about this.

I've been writing things here and there for years, but I feel like they lack direction. It's just one person putting it out there with very limited reach. I feel like being part of a bigger project could help me effect change better. At the very least, it could help me feel like I'm doing something more tangible.

There are a lot of unorthodox or minor values and beliefs in societies. For example, in Western countries, veganism is relatively rare. But still, it's not unheard of and it's gaining traction. In the same way, radically egalitarian values are in no way popular, but they are definitely heard of. Think of ideologies that based themselves on them, like anarchism or utopian socialism.

We all have values and beliefs we hold dear, but even the ones that are very unorthodox most often fall into a tradition in some sort of philosophy, and have some significant following and historical grounding.

Obviously, no matter how unorthodox a belief is, there's going to be some historical grounding and tradition. But think of the beliefs and values you have, and consider whether you have any that is found in even less than 1% of the population. Do you have such values or beliefs, and why?

...

In my case, it's the fact that I despise nature. By nature, I don't mean being exposed to beautiful parts of it in a safe environment. I mean the hunger, the thirst, the violence, the diseases, the cold, the hot, and similar hardships. I mean nature in its glorious violence and random acts of suffering. I cherish life, and I do my best to contribute to its conservation, and that's why I despise the violence inherent in nature. Metaphorically speaking, Mother Nature is the most abusive parent in history. As an extension of this, in the grand scheme of things, I see the violence of nature as a much bigger problem than violence of humankind.

If I understand folks with that PoV correctly:

if you are a democrat or typically vote democrat, you generally think that republicans are a danger to democracy, bad for the lives of minorities, and the disadvantaged/LGBT+, etc.
If you are a republican or typically vote republican, you generally think that democrats are a danger to democracy, divide the country with identity politics, etc.
(obviously I am making sweeping generalizations of both camps off the top of my head but hopefully the point comes across)

But, I don't get what your endgame is. Like, you make it seem like if the other party wins, the country is screwed. but you can't possibly think that the country will forever vote for your party for President, right? So you think America is destined to go downhill depending on how many years the opposing party is in power?

America flips between red and blue. So the other party is bound to win at least once a decade imo. and yet I hear how democracy is more at stake now than it's ever been if "the other party wins". So I don't get the long-term viability of "lesser of 2 evils" approach.

Since I doubt America will become less angry and divisive anytime soon thanks to yallls 24 hour news networks and the social media companies that make more money the more Americans are mad at each other.

Then again, I am by no means an expert so where am I wrong or have I misunderstood something?

As part of a weekly series, these topics are a place for users to casually discuss the things they did — or didn't do — during their week. Did you accomplish any goals? Suffer a failure? Do nothing at all? Tell us about it!

I try to do this exercise with myself sometimes and then... forget. But thought it'd be a fun thread.

(Also, obligatory reminder that Tildes is also public and all comments are available without login, so keep things uh, vague enough.)

This is a thought I had, and I'm not saying it's necessarily true, or at least cynically true. But I think it brings to the fore an interesting point, and I want to emphasize how it feels like.

I feel like people are mostly interested in politics from a distant and uninvolved point of view. For example, in more progressive spaces, there's all this talk about fear of climate change, deteriorating international politics, rise of right wing authoritarianism, populism, nationalism, etc. However, I feel like people expect others to do something about it. There's this passivity and inaction, and no real effort to combat such changes. I feel like debates, talking, ruminating and such perform a theatrical function that makes you feel as if you've contributed to "doing good", but you actually don't do anything. This is what I mean by performative.

This is not to say talking is unimportant. It's a major component of politics, and it's a core value and function of democratic and egalitarian approaches. However, it feels to me like doomscrolling and dreading or being angry about political things is seen as being politically conscious and active, while political consciousness can't exist without action.

What are your thoughts about this? Have you had similar thoughts, or do you think differently? How do you emotionally handle this?

Lately, I've noticed that during small group discussions in professional settings, especially in virtual meetings, I have a tendency to contribute additional thoughts after someone else shares something. My colleagues are often quiet which leads to awkward silences between topics, and I feel that for the discussion to flow smoothly, there needs to be some form of response or reciprocity to what was said. So, I often take on the role of expanding upon others' points, even if what I say doesn't add much. I should note that, I myself am an introvert through and through, but these awkward silences still make me uncomfortable and it's kind of annoying to see a mute icon pop up when it's supposed to be an active conversation. I suppose this is a habit that carried over from my days of hosting Bible studies many years ago, where active participation was hard to come by. People don't often share, but when they do, it helps to have someone acknowledge it - in my opinion, at least. I similarly engage like this in D&D where, in roleplaying scenarios, I'd use my character to fill in the empty spaces of conversation between other players and the DM, even if it's just a simple response that wasn't explicitly necessary.

My question is: do people, including yourself, appreciate it when someone responds or adds to their point in this manner? I struggle to discern whether I'm actually facilitating the conversation or hogging it in an annoying way. I'm open to feedback or hearing from your experiences.

Ok, not utopia per se but a post-scarcity-ish economy where people have their basic needs—food, shelter, healthcare—met virtually automatically. A world where, sure, maybe you have to earn money for certain very scarce luxuries like a tropical island trip, jewelry, nightly wagyu steak dinners, or a penthouse overlooking Central Park, but you get enough basic income to eat healthily and decently every day, have a modest but comfortable home, and not stress out about going to the hospital — and then you can choose if you want to work to earn money to buy additional luxuries or just spend your time to do sports, make art or music, pursue an academic interest, counsel or mentor others in your community, or devote yourself to nature conservation.

I want to get this conversation rolling regularly because it's evident that we're on a cusp of a new economic era — one where AI and automation could free us from a lot of menial physical and intellectual labor and the pretense that everyone has to work to earn their continued existence. It's evident that not everyone has to work. If anything, our economy could be more efficient if incompetent or unmotivated folks just stayed at home and got out of other people's way. I think we all know someone who stays in a job because they need it but are actually a net negative on the organization.

It's an open-ended topic, and there's a lot to talk about in this series—like, how would we distribute the fruits of automation? How would we politically achieve those mechanisms of distribution? What does partially automated healthcare look like?—but I think it'd be good to first talk about current economic inefficiencies that should and could be automated away.

Do you go by gut/heart feeling?

Do you analyze by head?

Do you write out long lists of pros and cons on paper?

Do you consult a lot of family and friends and then go by consensus majority?

Do you overanalyze and agonize and hit decision paralysis? If so, how do you get over that or push through it?

As part of a weekly series, these topics are a place for users to casually discuss the things they did — or didn't do — during their week. Did you accomplish any goals? Suffer a failure? Do nothing at all? Tell us about it!

As the title indicates, I am curious how folks have “gone with their gut intuition”, especially in circumstances where they are faced with tough decisions or life-altering changes. Some thoughts/prompts for discussion:

• What does your “gut” feel like to you?
• How do you reconcile differences between your “gut feeling” and what your brain is thinking/telling you?
• How do you get to the point where you decide to “go with your gut”?
• Can you share examples of when you went against your brain, and followed your gut, and it turned out to totally be the right decision for you?
• Do you have any examples of when you followed your gut intuition, instead of what your brain/logical mind was telling you, and it came back to bite you?
• How have you learned to “trust your gut”?
• What tactics or steps have you learned to take when trying to parse between what your “gut” is telling you and what your “brain” is telling you?

Curious how other people listen to their gut and use that intuition to make decisions or choose which direction to go in (concerning life stuff, career stuff, relationship issues, etc.).

I'm getting ready to try a long-term media fast, at least a month or two. That means no Social, no general forum talk (I have a couple of task-specific groups I have to stick with), no general Internet browsing, and minimal news.

But I don't want to completely divorce myself from the major news events of the world. In case Russia invades the EU, I want to know about it before Russian soldiers are knocking on my door. If a new global pandemic kicks off, or they fix global warming ... you know, Big Ticket items.

So that's the question. If you only get one news source, that provides objective (-ish) reporting focused on actual news (not sports, not pop culture, not click-bait-y diet-fads and vitamin recommendations) ... news of the state of the world (preferably including the world beyond the United States).

I realize there probably isn't a single source that hits all my bullets, but that's okay; I just need one that's close.

Danke, y gracias.

Edit: For now, my first pick is AP News' World News section ( https://apnews.com/world-news ). So, that's sort of my baseline; anything better than that available?

Edit #2: So, apparently, AP News has either handicapped or completely eliminated their RSS feed(s); I'm getting some results, but all old and suspiciously incomplete, and the 'Net is full of "here's how to cobble together the equivalent of a real AP News RSS feed" tips. So, unless I figure this out quickly, I'm just about to lose interest in AP News.

Anyone have any tips on this?

In the past few months I have been reading a lot about historical food culture. It's kind of amazing how much things have changed here in the US. Over the last century or so we have basically eliminated communal eating and massively changed the economics of prepared meals. At one point we had automats and cafeterias which skipped out on most of the "front of house" service and focused on serving large volumes of people to keep prices low. There were also diners, which are much different from what we consider to be a diner today; they were very small places that only prepared simple things that needed very little labor to prepare; things like hash browns, sandwiches, or pancakes, so the food was still very cheap. But because they were small, they were able to serve smaller markets that other restaurants were not able to capitalize on. Compare that to today, where diners are just restaurants that have 50s style decor.

But the thing I think is much more unusual is how rare we see food used in service of a message. It's something that has a long history across the globe. Most notably, religions operate food kitchens that help to bring poor people into their folds. Some religions actually have a built-in food culture that includes feeding your neighbors. It's really effective too; there's a small chain of restaurants where I live that has inexpensive food which has some bhuddist texts at the dining tables, and honestly it had me considering joining a religion for the first time. If I spoke Chinese they might have got me! Eating food requires a baseline of trust, so if you can get someone to eat at your restaurant you will bypass a lot of the caution that people approach the world with.

With that being said, why isn't food-based activism a lot more popular? I'm sure that it would work for much more than religion. A restaurant that acts as a messaging platform doesn't necessarily need to be funded by food sales, so they can undercut the competition on price and reach an even greater audience. Given the ways I have seen religions use food to further their means, I think that it could even go farther than changing people's minds about topics and actually motivate people to take action and join communities who are actually making real change. Food is both relatively inexpensive and it's something that everyone needs to survive, so it seems to me that food-based activism is the single largest missed opportunity for community organization.

As part of a weekly series, these topics are a place for users to casually discuss the things they did — or didn't do — during their week. Did you accomplish any goals? Suffer a failure? Do nothing at all? Tell us about it!

Long story short, I grew up believing that a great deal of worth of someone's life was effecting change, especially politically. That's why I valued activism. It took courage, especially considering I don't live in a developed country.

The older I got and more problems I faced, I started to realize how unsatisfactory, even hollow this was. Modes of activism I engaged in didn't seem to fulfill me emotionally anymore, they were mostly impersonal, and they didn't seem to change anything. I have a lot of views that are extremely unorthodox for the place I live in, and I don't see any political movement that internalizes those values. I am extremely alienated from the "nation" I am supposedly part of, and from the political movements within it.

Another angle is that I recently realized how misguided I was. I was mostly doing mental labor, believing in the axiom that ideas can change things. But after some time and readings, I started thinking activities that aim for collective action and concrete changes (e.g. syndicates) were much more important. These are not available to me.

I feel like I have wasted a lot of my time. I pursued ideals more than my own emotional needs, believing they would make me happy and fulfilled, and they didn't. I pursued a way of engaging in politics that felt good but didn't effect change.

Don't get me wrong, while this is exasperating, it's also extremely liberating, joyful even. I enjoy the moments of quiet destruction that bring about the new. I no longer feel ashamed to admit I want comfort and stability in my life, and I don't want to take unnecessary risks. I have enough problems as is.

With this being said, I haven't given up on effecting change. I think it's much more convoluted and different than what I imagined when I was younger, and it's not generally about "going out there and showing up" or writing political texts and such. There are also levels to creating change, as it's not a binary thing.

At this point, I want to primarily live for myself, participate in some kind of change without risking myself to the point of overwhelming anxiety, and make more personal and real connections with people in general, including during effecting change.

What I've written here is a bit rough, but it's still an ongoing and raw process for me, and this post is more of a conversation topic, rather than a properly structured argument. I am interested in hearing your opinions. Has anyone had similar experiences, or things this post reminded you of?

The foundation for organic friendships they say is repeated, unplanned interactions (which I think I largely agree with). But this isn't always feasible, depending on the environment you're in. Do you think a truly rich and organic friendship can be "forced"? What, if anything, is lost?