I didn’t say he couldn’t also choose to pick a better time. It’s a mutual thing. They both need time to process the new information, get into a more healthy state, and readdress this thing. That can only happen when both say as much.
I’m pretty sure I said as much in the rest of the post, if you want to go back and read the other 80%.
Whether she realizes it or not, refusing to engage or talk about it, except in her own time frame- is not a good sign for a healthy relationship,
Haaaaaaaaaard disagree. People need time to process and self regulate before engaging with things like this. The silent treatment isn’t the right play, and neither is stewing in it, not trying to reach an emotionally grounded state, and reapproacing the situation.
A much more healthy response, from either individual, would be to set a timeframe for when they can reengage. Either him saying “clearly you don’t want to discuss this now. That’s okay. How about the morning?” or her saying the same, essentially. It’s healthy to admit that you just do not have the emotional capacity to have a conversation respectfully.
There’s a pretty good chance the questions asked were only asked because she was still very emotionally high. The fact that it occurred in the middle of the night, suddenly, after OP being asleep, says that she has probably not been regulating. Not good times to be having emotional discourse. Every person has said weird, gross, or straight up untrue things when they’re emotionally charged. Stuff you don’t believe or wouldn’t act on, and never would have said in a normal state.
None of this is to excuse any of the actions or words said. She clearly has some emotional issues, and needs actual, professional help. I’m just picking at the “refusing to talk” bit. There are healthy ways to refuse to talk, and many benefits to not just butting heads immediately.
It’s true enough advice, though. She has an emotional problem, not a rational one. She probably knows full well that her response isn’t rational, but she still feels the feelings she has. Explaining the rationale and logic she seems to be missing is only going to make her more upset. Versus, instead, figuring out what her actual problem is. Maybe it’s a long standing issue, having texts ignored. Maybe she has some past trauma, or something specific happened that day that just set them off.
It’s not always about being right or wrong. Her response, we all agree, was a wrong response. It’s one that I’d be considering the relationship for. But it’s also one to learn from, for all parties. Someone having a problem stemming from an emotion often isn’t going to be made better by logicing the situation into submission.
You’re asking people to describe a qualic phenomenon. This thing, the feeling of being trans, isn’t really something someone can describe to someone who hasn’t experienced it.
Ultimately, what you’re describing to me is less trans, and more along the lines of how I am. I’m a cisgender male, but I’m also very feminine in certain areas. I paint my nails, I enjoy dancing, too, and I play female characters in games where I can make the character. I enjoy teaching, and nurturing. I have no desire to change my gender, or to conform any more strictly to one set of gender norms or the other.
So often, you’ll hear trans people say they always knew. I think that’s both the case, and a bit off. My guess is that they’ve always had a feeling SOMETHING was amiss, but weren’t really able to nail down the exact feeling until, well… They started considering transitioning.
I was talking about the phone lmao.
Something would get turned off really quick.
I dunno, have you seen the drivers out there? Pretty sure some of them are watching movies.
Sure, you don’t need to stress eat while you’re bored. But eating is already a thing you do, it makes you feel good, and it’s there.
Imagine if you actually had to smoke a cigarette 3 times a day. The smoke is a requirement for your body. It makes you feel good, but you can go to excess and it’s bad for you. This is MUCH closer to food.
You HAVE to eat. You eat daily. Not doing so is a disorder. So you can’t just not eat, you have to develop a healthy relationship with food. With this thing that tastes good, makes you feel good, and you have to do anyway. Well, that’s okay. We can have a healthy relationship with it!
Oh no. You’re sad. Something bad happened. You need something to help you out. Well, how about some food? It’s usually pretty enjoyable. You eat every day anyway, so like… It’s not a HUGE deal, surely, and you’re fuckin SAD man. Fuck it, whole pizza it is! Let’s get happy!
Rinse and repeat, because life is inevitably a big series of bad things (and good, but we’re not focusing on those) happening. Now your emotional coping is tied to food. It’s not as addictive as nicotine, but it is a requirement for life. It’s a lot harder to change THAT than it is to just say “don’t smoke.” It’s like going to a smoker and saying “smoke, but only 3 times a day.”
I don’t see any normalizing of obesity. I see a lot of empathy for people whose circumstances have led them to this point. I see a lot of explaining why someone may actively choose foregoing physical health for another reason.
You can support people who are in a position, even by “their own hand” without saying it’s cool, or normal, or anything. You can give just a little back to these people, to hopefully help move them back towards an actual normal living without saying where they are now is good or healthy. That’s what I’m seeing.
Time is a cost too. When people say processed foods are cheaper, time is part of that. If you spend an hour grocery shopping, you can buy a processed meal for each day of the week, and take whatever time it is to microwave it. That’s a lot less than the 30 minutes minimum to make a meal from ingredients. That time becomes important when you have obligations past the ‘regular’ 40 hours a week job.
Having a dick is all well and good, but I don’t think I’d want to interact with a person who was entirely 100% a penis. Big difference between having and being.
We also extend some sympathy to the cigarette smoker, to the self harmer. Quitting smoking is HARD. It takes a ton of effort, nicotine is literally addictive. Self harm is indicative of any of a number of mental and emotional issues. Those are a nightmare to address
But at the end of the day, they should just grow up and do it, right? Just don’t smoke. Just don’t cut yourself. Just don’t eat to excess. Simple.
Never mind the literal good deserts some people find themselves in. The decades of misinformation from lobbying groups. The fact that everyone has their own one weird trick,so you don’t know who to believe. The fact that the cheapest food is often the least nutritious. The fact that, increasingly, people have to work more hours to get by, leaving less time for things like cooking a proper meal.
There are real societal factors that play into the obesity epidemic. We didn’t get where we are because everyone was collectively like “let’s just get fat, yeah?” - we were all brought to this point by the influences of the world around us. Personal responsibility is all well and good, but it’s also not the whole game.
Why does it necessarily have to be a celebration? Are quiet hours at shopping centers celebrating sensory disorders?
It’s not about celebrating, even if some people will use it as such. It’s about allowing different people the comfort to experience a thing that most of our society takes for granted.
I’ve never met a fat person who doesn’t want to change their lifestyle. Sure, there are a few who claim that, but in my experience, that’s a defense mechanism from all of the people who look down on them daily. Something like this is only a good thing, offering encouragement at no significant cost.
I’m not an expert on any of this. Just a caveat, I’m sure anything I propose will have it’s share of flaws.
State law enforcement (men armed with guns apprehending private citizens) should be the LAST step. For in-the-moment intervention, cops are already useless - unless they happen to be on site already, whatever violence happen, will happen before they get there. There’s no good answer to stopping a determined violent individual, short of empowering people to defend themselves and others around them.
I think there’s always going to be some level of violent crime. Some people simply don’t function the same way. For these people, we clearly need some kind of active response force. It’s use should be limited, based on hard fact and actual threat to civilian life. We also clearly need some kind of (humane) separation for people who cannot or will not rehabilitate, people who cannot be reintegrated into our society. These are two of the only acceptable uses of state violence, in my opinion.
I don’t know the exact way it would look, but I’d like to see a move towards communities looking after themselves and those around them, in all aspects, and this includes safety and security.
Unfortunately, for property crimes, the only way to actually enforce property ownership is through violence, either direct threat of violence (break my shit and I’ll end you), or state violence (break my shit and the state will send armed men to apprehend you unless you reimburse me). We have to determine what level of property security versus violence we seem acceptable. I tend to fall a bit more extreme towards violence not being okay to protect property - I don’t think there’s a single piece of property worth killing or maiming an individual over. Thus, if the only way to protect property is this level of violence, I believe it is wrong to intervene. I don’t believe it is right for the individual to intervene, and I don’t believe it is right for the state to intervene. The sad truth is that most of what the police force does now is enforce these types of crimes.
I’m not going to keep going on this rhetoric treadmill with you. Once again, I agree in bulk with what you’re saying, I’m merely trying to point out why you’re not really having an impact with the words you’re saying. Im reasonably sure you know exactly what kinds of examples people want to see. Both refusing to supply them or acting ignorant to the request degrade your argument and make it feel like you aren’t arguing in good faith, you’re just shouting talking points.
Disarming: I don’t think there should be no weapons in the hands of law enforcement. Without significantly changing the mindset of how law enforcement must work in our society, yes, having the option to meet a significant resistance with firepower is required. To me, disarming is removing firearms from the average cop. None of the standard patrol officers you’re going to run into in your day-to-day should be carrying a pistol on their hip. Keep it locked in your trunk if you HAVE to have it reasonably accessible. Keep less-lethal options the on-your-hip ready options. Too often we see cops go for the pistol before even engaging with their suspect. I’ve had it happen to me, and we’ve all seen videos I’m sure. Let’s remove that from the equation entirely, keep the guns for after it’s escalated.
Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. I’d rather just let the cat go and focus on the long-term solutions, like fixing the socioeconomic conditions that breed these crimes in the first place. This is also EXACTLY the kind of thing people are outraged over regarding police existing to protect property, not people.
Defunding: similar to disarming, you are correct in that simply removing funds won’t work. Again, I don’t think that’s the realistic end goal. Defujd in the sense that they do not need military level equipment. More, it’s reallocating the funds to things like training, oversight, maybe trading some armed officers for some mental health response personnel. Things like this.
Not in any way resembling what we have today. Good straw man tho.
At least they’re held accountable to someone or something. Even if we have to have 40 layers of vigilantism, it’s better than what we have with police today - essentially zero accountability. Qualified immunity exists, and police oversight boards are routinely voted against, etc.
I’m not an expert in this field, I don’t have all of the answers. I don’t think we can really get all of the answers on a topic as large as “how do we keep society safe” without trying things. I do think the thing we’ve tried for the last little bit has run its course, it’s shown us it doesn’t have much merit, and I’m ready for another system.
Cases where this has happened. Articles detailing actual, specific, times that these things have happened.
To be clear - I agree with you. I’m merely trying to point out why people seem to be talking past you, and you past them.
This post mirrors my own life way too eerily close. Roommate I lived (still do) with transitioned from male to female. I’ve always been pretty feminine and have, naturally, had the questions. Their transition really opened my eyes to what it all means, and helped me to realize that, nah, I’m fine with the body I have (well, okay, I still have some body problems, but it’s just cause I’m fat) and just like the things I like, and that’s ok.