candybar

> It sounds like violently agree with everything other than my framing and wording choices.

No, you previously implied that the discovery of this information is somehow leading to less judgment and blame and more of an effort to understand.

> The author seemingly had a lot of judgement and blame for the dad before finding this out. It sounds like they are seeking understanding

If you read the story, it looks to me that prior to learning all this she felt bad that he didn't get to have a life of his own and sacrificed for her. But she learned that this wasn't the case. This is kind of the opposite of what you're suggesting.

Also on this:

> You can either seek understanding or seek blame, but not both at once.

My point here is that she's doing both.

> Maybe. I didn't notice it was a period and not a comma until posting it. I still read it as "we found...his life" sure maybe they interpret it was him wasting that life, but your prior sentiment I quoted is the thing I'm emphasizing. I'm not saying there's no judgement. I'm saying there's a clear (to me) attempt at understanding that goes beyond blame.

It's not about the period - it's that she's using italic for quote and this is part of her mom's statement.

I think you're misreading that last line. I'm pretty sure what the author is saying is:

> the evening we found the love letters my mom said to me, "he wasted his entire life, his entire life, and mine as well."

Also, I don't think she's seeking one vs the other, nor is she judging him less now that she knows he's had a bunch of affairs. She's presenting a story and it's obvious that she has mixed feelings, full of both positive and negative judgement.

Aggression and building rapport aren't mutually exclusive - a lot of this is subtle negotiation for relative status. Just because all parties are okay with these as a way to get to a reasonable common ground (and if done right, can lead to strong rapport and relatively equal status) doesn't mean aggression isn't there. I don't think most of this is conscious, but you will also see conspicuously high-status people use self-deprecating humor to lower their perceived threat level, or conversely, people targeting other conspicuously high-status or threatening people to take them down a notch (to some extent, this is what we're seeing here). Or in a more hierarchical situation, high-status people might target lower-status people to reinforce their higher status.

How are you defining groceries here? I suspect that some people are being fairly expansive and including everything that they'd buy at a grocery store, while others are being much more restrictive. Using a more expansive definition (mostly because I've literally broken things down by items), we're close to $500 per person, the few times I've spot-checked our spending. I think it's difficult to be well-below $200 per person without being highly budget-conscious, avoiding expensive categories altogether and/or eating out all the time.

If you find yourself having to hit the brakes hard frequently because a pedestrian stepped off the curb while being distracted, you probably also need to pay more attention while driving.

My general experience is that in practice, in most areas, most drivers don't yield enough and most pedestrians yield too much because the pedestrian has a lot more to lose. It's also important to remember that driving is a privilege specifically granted by the state, walking is not.

You're wildly off the mark here. From the study quoted:

> In 2017, over 60% of 110,531 US veterinarians were female, and in 2016, approximately 80% of students enrolled at US veterinary medical colleges were female.

> The PMRs for suicide for all veterinarian decedents (2.1 and 3.5 for males and females, respectively), those in clinical positions (2.2 and 3.4 for males and females, respectively), and those in nonclinical positions (1.8 and 5.0 for males and females, respectively) were significantly higher than for the general US population.

So no, this has nothing to do with vets being disproportionately male (which isn't the case to begin with).

Sure, but at this point you're no longer talking about why vets are dying from suicide at a higher rate. We don't know if vets tend to deal with more "distress and hopelessness" than the general population.

I think this is a good take - the legal theories mentioned in this thread (1st amendment, Section 230) seem mostly baseless, but this doesn't seem like appropriate legislation at the state-level either way. I don't know enough about the commerce clause restrictions on state regulations, but I do wonder if that comes into play given that moderation policies will almost always have interstate and international commerce implications.

This is legally nonsensical - nothing about Section 230 precludes any further restriction on moderation by another entity. Section 230 is and has always been about the act of moderation not specifically creating liability for the carrier of user-generated content - nothing about Section 230 grants the publisher any specific right not to be subject to further moderation at another level.

The first amendment angle is a stronger argument, but unfortunately for X, it's also extremely weak and would require overriding decades of precedence and essentially create a crisis - there are far more onerous regulations in place that are still relied upon in a way that having them constitutionally challenged would be extremely damaging.

This is content-free nonsense - it's easy to do the math, but those who are eligible for significant "credit boost" from Obama-era whatever plans are non-factors when it comes to influencing home prices in the bay area housing market for obvious reasons.

You have to be almost economically illiterate to believe any of this - it's sad how ideology shapes thought and transparent garbage like this gets published everyday.

I would go even further - it's complete nonsense. I'm going to guess the author never wondered why Americans feel uncomfortable asking for a discount at a store and would rather just not buy when they would've happily bought it at half the price, whereas in many parts of Asia, it's common for customers to ask for what seem like outrageous discounts to a westerner. Norms are highly contextual - in every culture there are things you can ask for and there are things you can't - and there's huge individual variation in the willingness to adhere to norms and the willingness to make others uncomfortable to get what you want.

> [Because of something something Asian culture] My parents rarely had to make explicit asks of me,

It baffles me how anyone with any kind of awareness could write this.