stoneparchment

Idk I think the most memorable thing he did was bring a cow up to his college bell tower as a prank

Cows can't walk down stairs so they had to butcher it in the tower

He was expelled for it

Was a really touching story that cut deep about serious mental health issues...

...until chapter 18 where the author goes off the deep end with reductive manosphere bs...

Gonna be a no from me

AAAHHH

I NEEEEED IITTT

You didn't mention it, but have you considered how it would feel if you had a bad day and didn't live up to this standard?

You're framing it like a moral philosophy, but feeling anger is not a morally bad thing. Neither is jealousy, or selfishness, at times. It's just part of the human experience, and we can avoid it most of the time, but occasionally we're going to need to focus on ourselves and our needs and our feelings.

Similarly, it's impossible to avoid having an ego 100% of the time. Honestly, it sounds like this quality is part of your identity-- would you like yourself less if you lived up to this standard imperfectly?

I don't think it's unusual to want to be a good person and to want to control our worst impulses. But to describe it as "trying to act like a saint", and saying you're "deaf to your own needs"-- those are concerning statements.

I don't think anyone can speak for you or guess what's going on from the outside. But if I were you, I'd be exploring if there's fear underlying these impulses. Fear of judgment: how do you think the world would perceive you if you stopped being so strict about it? Fear of badness: how does it feel when you have a bad day and you fail to be perfect? Do you resent yourself? Fear of impurity: do you feel like other people are bad when they have these natural reactions? Do you fear being like other people who are experiencing and dealing with normal feelings?

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in this and this is just my understanding of how to answer this question

You may or may not realize that most voters don't usually go out well in advance and research all potential candidates, selecting the one they feel represents their values the best. Many of them don't even check in to the conversation until the primaries are over and they can make a simple red vs. blue choice. Among voters that do participate in primaries, they mostly rely on information they learn about those potential candidates by watching advertisements, endorsements from other well known politicians, clips from debates, news and social media coverage, etc.

Creating that information (ads, debates, news coverage, social media, etc.) requires two things: money and momentum. Money comes first, and is disbursed according to the process the other commenter described-- the party talks with its donors and collectively they decide who to fund.

In Bernie's case, he was systematically deprived of money by the DNC as described above, in addition to his moral philosophy of not taking money from big donors. Instead, he funded his campaign through small donations-- which he earned a LOT of-- but he still had fewer funds to generate advertisements, to host events, to "get the word out".

Without this funding and support, Bernie couldn't generate momentum as effectively. The fact that he is as popular as he is despite the lack of support from the party illustrates how popular his platform is, but that isn't enough to get disengaged voters interested. Further, in his case, other party members actively wanted him to NOT be the nominee, so there were fewer endorsements, more intentional maneuvering by the party to convince voters to vote for other candidates, etc.

In essence, the idea that having the purest moral and policy philosophy is the most important element to winning the nomination is naive: it takes money and support from institutions, or else no one will ever even know what that pure philosophy is.

bogus

I want to point out that in the article/interview you posted,

1. the expert disagreed with the interviewer that the causes of the gap are biological in nature, and

2. that they both agreed that the causes of the gap are undergoing rapid change due to social factors from the covid pandemic, and they bet it will be decreasing over the next few decades

Figured I'd clarify in case anyone read your comment and got confused about what the expert was saying :)

Yes, this is true. Using an inert gas doesn't cause CO2 toxicity, but rebreathing atmospheric air does.

I want to warn anyone thinking of trying this: don't.

Obviously there's the don't commit suicide part, and that's the most important part. But also, as someone who has unfortunately spent time considering various methods, I can tell you: don't even consider doing it this way.

Genuinely sorry to be contradictive, but you absolutely would have been in a painful situation if you'd continued. The only explanation is that you didn't get to the point that your body 100% takes over from you and forces a desperate, painful, writhing attempt to get air.

You would die of increased CO2 concentration in your blood long before you actually ran out of oxygen. That increased CO2 would be very painful. Like, lizard brain stem absolutely taking over, full panicking levels of painful. Don't try it!

Oooh, fair point. I do think that's still tricky now (I work with an international team) but it definitely wouldn't get any better

EDIT: WAIT unless the date switched over at 00:00 every day no matter where you were

It would be annoying to be the many people whose work or waking hours were on "MonTues" though lol

Not the original commenter, but why couldn't it be more like "John sleeps from 12-20:00 and is usually working from 21-5:00" and "Stacy sleeps from 8:00-16:00 and works from 17-1:00", so Stacy and John decide to plan their video call for 6:00-7:00? Like I don't super care what light schedule it is, more what my friends schedules are specifically, right? And the question could just be, "What times are you available?"