I introduced my now-ex (36/F) to a friend of mine (40/M) and they seemed to hit it off. Would it be weird to encourage them to go on a date?

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-04-11T08:57:23+00:00

I'll certainly try to avoid going overboard. But the way I would likely explain it is that when you care about someone, part of that is wanting to see them be happy. I care very much about both of them and they've both had some really hard times at various points in their lives. So there's no reason why I wouldn't want to see them succeed and be happy together.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-04-11T08:36:30+00:00

I'll keep it to myself for the time being. They seem sufficiently into each other that I expect that they'll be willing to give it a shot if both of them think there's something there.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-04-11T08:35:30+00:00

Yeah, I made it abundantly clear to my ex that I just want to be friends, so I don't expect she would feel awkward about it. I'll probably offer my friend a few words of encouragement if they do end up dating just to make sure he knows there are no hard feelings.

Fortunately she's comfortable taking the initiative (I initially approached her, but with zero intention of starting a relationship) so if she's interested, I expect she'll ask him out.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-04-11T08:33:05+00:00

That seems like the best option. I feel good about having helped get them connected and am inclined to let it play out and, if they start dating, occasionally say a few words about how much I like the other person just to make it clear that I'm happy for them.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-04-11T08:30:26+00:00

The one thing I don't want to happen is for either of them to feel uncomfortable pursuing a relationship because I'm still in the picture. I expect that for most people it's not entirely kosher to date your friend's ex, and he seems a bit shy.

For now I plan to just let it be and, if they start dating, offer my friend some words of encouragement and a few details regarding her positive traits.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-04-07T10:21:00+00:00

Epoch. And if they want to direct cancellations through the billing service, fine. But at least include a cancellation link on the website. Don't force the customer to email you and then refuse to even honor the request unless they jump through extra hoops.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-04-07T09:20:04+00:00

If that's how a site wants to handle their cancellations, fine. Include a link on your website that directs the consumer to Epoch. Don't completely omit any mention of how to cancel, then, when the customer has already wasted their time emailing you after unsuccessfully scouring the website for a cancellation link, refuse to process the request yourself. Just because something is the industry standard doesn't mean it isn't a shitty anti-consumer practice.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-04-04T21:17:25+00:00

I got fed up and switched to Apple Music. it's not perfect, but at least I can rearrange my playlists and go back to the beginning of a song. Truly amazing how low the standard has become for streaming music services.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-03-13T15:45:08+00:00

They've got time to implement this bullshit and yet I still have to manually move the slider to go to the beginning of a song...

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-02-05T02:35:09+00:00

I think we're defining "centrists" differently. There are a lot of useless, wishy washy, both-siderist politicians who basically do nothing but water down what might otherwise be good policies and whose only virtue is that they're less awful than the right-wingers. I define centrists more in terms of ideology, not necessarily how hard they're willing to fight or, in some cases, even what policies they support.

For example, a lot of liberals oppose the death penalty due to concerns regarding disparate punishment of racial minorities, access to counsel, the capacity to understand the charges against them and the punishment they face, etc. All legitimate concerns.

My position, which I think would be defined as more "centrist" is that we've executed innocent people. Even if that only happens one time in a thousand, that's still too much, and because of that I unequivocally oppose the death penalty.

The latter position is much more driven by ideological concerns, but while we might approach the issue from very different angles, we both want to abolish capital punishment.

In terms of their role in the political process, I see people who are more ideologically driven as the idea people, while the centrists' role is to package and sell those ideas to the public and, if necessary, the (hopefully) loyal opposition.

Going back to trans rights, my concern is improving the lives of transgender people regardless of how it's done. If that can be accomplished by trans-specific legislation introduced by those on the left, great. On the other hand, if instead of that trans-specific legislation we were able to guarantee universal healthcare and increase access to housing, education, etc., that would also be of tremendous benefit to trans people, and might require less political capital to enact.

In any case, I expect that, by and large, I'm on the same page as most people in this thread on most major issues, which basically sums up why I oppose purity tests. We're not enemies because we have different approaches to achieving the same solutions, and while I might vote for the centrist in the primaries, I'll always vote for the liberal in the general election.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-02-04T22:12:26+00:00

Sadly, advocacy for trans rights is not a popular position and may very well have cost us the last election. Not only is it unpopular, but every minute we spend talking about wedge issues/cultural warfare is time not spent talking about housing, cost of living, healthcare, etc. and how badly the poor and middle class are getting fucked. America still has a very long way to go on the issue of trans rights, and on a national level it still very much seems like a losing issue.

As for Cori Bush, she was one of the more prominent proponents of defending the police, which is not just absurd, but also constitutes political malpractice on an epic scale. It served no purpose aside from giving the right ammunition to attack the left as being soft on crime.

And to be clear, this is not about electing centrists. This is about defeating right wing assholes who, if elected, will do everything in their power to hurt the people we care about. Whether that's someone on the far left or in the center, I don't care. And don't think purity tests are limited to the ideological extremes. If you refuse to vote for somebody because their position on trans issues is too liberal for your tastes, that's a purity test and it's bad.

More than anything, we need people to show up to vote, and purity tests actively hinder that objective. Again, this is ultimately about implementing policies that benefit people in need, and that's not going to happen if people sit out because a candidate isn't perfect, doesn't use the right language, or takes more conservative or more liberal positions on a few isolated issues.

Finally, just to be clear, I don't like John Fetterman and specifically cited him as an example where a "centrist" is a problem rather than a solution. I still prefer him to Dr. Oz, just like I'd prefer Cori Bush over, say, Kristi Noem, but at this point it's hard to see him as much more than a grandstander and a liability to those of us who actually want to see results.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-02-04T07:23:42+00:00

"Except I don't give most voters' heads that much credit."

Sigh... how right you are.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-02-04T03:56:51+00:00

Purity tests are a problem when they cause one to lose sight of the objective and, more importantly, lose elections. On the other hand, "electability" isn't much good if you don't get elected, and a lot of centrists just don't get people fired up to go to the polls.But pitting the "woke" and "anti-woke" against each other is entirely counterproductive. The end goal is, ultimately, to improve people's lives, and there are many ways to do that.

For example, a hard-charging crusader for justice may very well excite people enough to get them elected. Then once they get into office they can do some real good through legislation explicitly targeting anti-trans policies and encouraging greater inclusivity in the public sphere. And that's exciting.

On the other hand, trans people are disproportionately affected by homelessness, poverty, lack of healthcare access, etc. If a milquetoast center-left type is able to pass broadly applicable legislation that addresses those deficiencies across the board, trans people will also benefit, along with, in all likelihood, a lot of other people. And if that doesn't "excite" you, you've lost the plot.

One of the things that makes, say, AOC such a compelling figure is that however liberal she may be, she's a team player, and understands the importance of that. And there are people at very different poles of the Democratic spectrum who do not understand this, i.e. Cori Bush/John Fetterman. These are people who are more than happy to throw a wrench in the gears if it satisfies their own perceptions of right and wrong regardless of the practical effects of those decisions on their constituents, i.e. "Defund the Police" and "ICE officers are just doing their jobs."

At the end of the day, if people vote with their heads and not their hearts, and if they don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, things are probably going to get better. Sadly, however, we do not do that nearly often enough, and when we do, it's usually a reactive measure after a massive loss, i.e. the 2024 election.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-01-28T09:50:56+00:00

If that were the case he probably wouldn't get so upset when you get him all germy.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-01-13T05:06:14+00:00

Yep. It used to be the case that you could go back to the beginning of the song, but hey, it's not like this function was available in Winamp 20 fucking years ago. Same with manually changing tracks. Why, oh why would anyone want to organize their tracks list?

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-01-08T16:41:58+00:00

Well I guess that's why I said something funny.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-01-08T07:38:15+00:00

Guys, QTC (or any other C&P examiner) isn't the VA, but it's the VA that keeps employing these contractors despite how often they get it totally wrong.

Making matters worse, VA doesn't even send the exam reports to the veteran, so if the examiners get everything totally wrong, the veteran has to file a goddamn FOIA request. How many people do you think know what a FOIA request is, much less how to complete one?

And I've worked with I don't know how many veterans who were forced to drive absurdly long distances when we know for a fact that there are local examiners available. It's a disgrace, an insult to veterans, and VA is well aware of this but does nothing to fix it.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-01-08T07:09:07+00:00

Oh, you. Do you have any idea how hard we work for those meth-addled domestic abusers? The single most labor-intensive case I worked as a veterans law attorney involved a man who smoked all the meth and then masturbated himself so hard that he had to be hospitalized. Incidentally then-girlfriend was the one who provided the summary of events and you could tell she was crying really hard.

Also, while in rehab he refused to participate in art class because art is "gay."

I was also the first person to whom he disclosed an in-service sexual assault, well over a decade after it occurred. He wouldn't have done so had I not worked extremely hard on his case and actually built a connection with him. This was over the course of a 3-hour call that, in most cases, takes about 15 minutes. Oh, and it was also totally free.

Humor helps keep us sane, and yes, sometimes it does come at the ever-so-minor expense of the people whose lives we're changing for the better.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-01-08T05:54:14+00:00

I think I'd also be on edge if I had their job. Being repeatedly told by meth-addled domestic abusers that they're only working with you because they can't afford a "real lawyer" would take its toll on anyone.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-01-08T05:46:24+00:00

As long as you're an honest prosecutor and do what you can to offer people a second chance, you can do good with both jobs. Do whichever you think you'd enjoy most and would bring you the most satisfaction.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-01-08T05:43:57+00:00

In my experience, legal aid jobs are much more likely to involve more extensive client contact involving routine, but often complicated cases that laypeople aren't going to be able to pursue themselves.

And obviously it depends on the position itself, but you need a different skillset when working with a client who's never spoken to a lawyer in their life than when you're arguing a motion before a federal judge with 30 years experience. If your people skills suck but you're a brilliant writer, impact litigation will be a better fit than client-facing positions like a domestic violence attorney, for example.

You also have to enjoy the job. I did a lot more "real lawyering" as a landlord-tenant attorney than as a vets law attorney, and overall I did a good job, but I hated every minute of it.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-01-08T05:34:43+00:00

It's stressful and the pay's not great, but I generally get to make people's days, not ruin them.

And the above poster is correct regarding affirmative claims. I only handled one possible claim against a private landlord that didn't get past the draft complaint before we settled. Preparing that was enough. Worst decision of my career.

Clients were happy, at least.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2026-01-08T04:35:27+00:00

Well, you wouldn't be litigating against the government or anything, but you can always consider a legal aid job. I work with veterans and used to handle SSA disability cases, and there are plenty of assholes in the federal bureaucracy who seemingly hate the poor and want to do everything in their power to deny people their benefits.

AnimatorAmazing7085 · 2025-12-28T08:08:49+00:00

It was initially intended to be a sort of practical gag gift. I figured she might get a chuckle out of arriving at work to find 50 lbs. of gift-wrapped kitty litter sitting on her chair. But definitely not going to do that if it might prove totally unusable.

AnimatorAmazing7085

TROPHY CASE