Zompist Bboard Again

Man in Space wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:05 pm I got some sort of very painful infection. At least the meds were able to be picked up.

Get better!

Had a root canal this morning. In spite of eight shots of anesthetic (eight) it never fully took during the procedure.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 4:53 pm Had a root canal this morning. In spite of eight shots of anesthetic (eight) it never fully took during the procedure.

Ugh that really sucks - sorry to hear.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 7:09 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 4:53 pm Had a root canal this morning. In spite of eight shots of anesthetic (eight) it never fully took during the procedure.

Ugh that really sucks - sorry to hear.

Same.

Does anyone else with a modicum of scientific knowledge get really riled when people talk about "carbon footprints" and "carbon capture", when they mean carbon dioxide, which is something very different?

when you don't want to change things, you change the words...

alice wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 2:27 pmDoes anyone else with a modicum of scientific knowledge get really riled when people talk about "carbon footprints" and "carbon capture", when they mean carbon dioxide, which is something very different?

Speaking of which, I am really astonished at how hot it has gotten recently. Temperatures are approaching 40°C over the past few days and my local pool has evaporated noticeably. I normally leave the AC off until the hottest days of August but it has already proven necessary several times this summer. Since we already have a thread about the existential threat of AI, perhaps we should start one for global warming as well.

alice wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 2:27 pm Does anyone else with a modicum of scientific knowledge get really riled when people talk about "carbon footprints" and "carbon capture", when they mean carbon dioxide, which is something very different?

I've been thinking about this all day but does it only mean CO2? Or do you mean that the people using the term don't know there are other carbon-based greenhouse chemicals, or are only referring to carbon dioxide? Or do you have a problem with the term in general? I don't think "carbon capture" is a bad umbrella term for removing (mostly carbon based) greenhouse gases and storing them or turning them into some useful item, but maybe you prefer something like greenhouse gas reduction?

As far as I know, carbon-based greenhouse gases do contribute the majority of the greenhouse effect followed by water vapor, but I could be wrong. Plus it could be that the gases that are easiest to remove and turn into more useful substances are the ones based on carbon, so the majority of greenhouse gas reduction would be the removal of carbon based molecules. But I can't say I've specifically read up on all of this lately.

I think alice is picking nits here. Just treat carbon as shorthand for carbon dioxide here.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 3:22 am I think alice is picking nits here. Just treat carbon as shorthand for carbon dioxide here.

Agreed.

Note that "carbon" here can also include methane, another major greenhouse gas.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 11:06 am Note that "carbon" here can also include methane, another major greenhouse gas.

Except that you don't usually fart coal or diamonds, unless there's something horribly wrong with your insides.

for this kind of problem, activated carbon can be prescribed...

I am extremely unhappy with CVS/Pharmacy right now.

I hate people who are* "averse to conflict". That's not benign. That's like being averse to compassion or growth. I understand that people can lack tact and contrition while conflicting, but at the same time nobody will ever be perfect. That sort of "but everything is already okay" mentality discourages thinking of anyone hurt or any looming danger. It focusses on the fact criticism was given, not what the criticism was.

*There are a fair amount of people who are averse to conflict for reasons out of their control, such as trauma and/or mental illness. I don't mean them, they're in the minority. I don't think they benefit from this particularly much either.

Starbeam wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 7:44 am I hate people who are* "averse to conflict". That's not benign. That's like being averse to compassion or growth. I understand that people can lack tact and contrition while conflicting, but at the same time nobody will ever be perfect. That sort of "but everything is already okay" mentality discourages thinking of anyone hurt or any looming danger. It focusses on the fact criticism was given, not what the criticism was.

One of my colleagues (who I think of as at least somewhat conflict-averse, at least compared to me) recently voiced annoyance at what she saw as a tendency to interpret "self-care" as "avoiding any situation that might inconvenience me". You can't grow or maintain healthy relationships without putting yourself into uncomfortable situations sometimes.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2023 10:32 am One of my colleagues (who I think of as at least somewhat conflict-averse, at least compared to me) recently voiced annoyance at what she saw as a tendency to interpret "self-care" as "avoiding any situation that might inconvenience me". You can't grow or maintain healthy relationships without putting yourself into uncomfortable situations sometimes.

Agree it's like people latched onto the literal phrasing/word choice of therapy and leftism without catching what the fucking messages were. They rotely memorized the texts as an instruction to "just be chill jeez" instead of improve or change society. It's also why i am antipathetic to calling any specific register the language of liberation/ other synonyms. They're just obeying an order without considering why they're following it other than "this person is good". Good people can have shitty ideas, tho it's far more common than bad people having good ones.

Starbeam wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 7:44 am I hate people who are* "averse to conflict".

Can you clarify what you mean by ""averse to conflict""? That's exactly a phrase I would use to characterise myself, but what you're talking about sounds nothing like me.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2023 4:42 pm

Starbeam wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 7:44 am I hate people who are* "averse to conflict".

Can you clarify what you mean by ""averse to conflict""? (...)

I don't want to, but since you insist....

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2023 4:42 pm Can you clarify what you mean by ""averse to conflict""? That's exactly a phrase I would use to characterise myself, but what you're talking about sounds nothing like me.

I'm curious to what you mean when you call yourself conflict-averse, may you elaborate?

For what i mean more precisely:

Anyone who tries to avoid confronting or challenging anyone in conversation at all cost; because those actions are always thought as unforgiving wrath.

It discourages criticism for a thing and discourages reprimanding person's actions, and encourages toxic positivity and tone police. Tact's a thing, sure; but there's a difference between hating a hostile criticism, and seeing criticism as the same as hostility. Conflict aversion values society being forced into a status quo. It at least breeds people bottling up problems until it's too late to deal with them properly, or just bad-faithing every remotely negative comment as another attack. My view of kindness isn't bottling up and defusing situations constantly, but being forgiving and contrite. And having tact.

I know some individuals are just not to be trusted with their criticisms/ conflicts (at least on serious subjects), and i also understand avoiding hassling somebody being a dick if your life would be on the line. Like with the people suffering from trauma and whatnot past their control, these situations are not what i mean in this rant.
----

Corollary: I feel like many people, on some level, are paranoid about acting up. They won't even be try to be contrite or mend anything for it.

This is not for too unfounded a reason; every single forgiveness is treated as the same as excusing what happened. That means every reaction to somebody not being forgiven or even just disliked is excused; or at least that they must be thrown away from the community forever. Community is needed to be alive and everyone should aim for good faith if they're in one. It's possible to reasonlessly dislike somebody without ascribing moral weight to the person, and hate somebody (for any cause) but have limits to what you will do unto them.

Do not get me wrong, there absolutely plenty of things that should not be forgiven, or that i would at least not forgive myself. The key thing is demarcating a limit between what kind of non-forgiveness/hostility oughtta be prescribed, and what oughtta be person-to-person. The world we have has either A) a demand of no boundaries, B) a demand that all boundaries are justified, or usually C) precise ones that are in favor of abusers.
----

So, many people don't conflict, because they assume that they're ostracizing somebody or committing another offense that could ostracize them. Limiting criticism and patience is an anti-social line of thought holding everything back.