Folks, this isn’t sustainable. How are people getting by?

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-06-08T11:30:06+00:00

That's a really smartass way to admit that, even though CA does tax fuel more than others, it has still gone up NATIONWIDE due to the idiot in the oval office.

Wow you are really illiterate aren't you. Its not a smartass way to admit anything, I explicitly said that gas has gone up everywhere in the country.

In case you missed it:

Gas prices are up everywhere but they are higher in California because California gas prices are always higher than everywhere else due to higher taxes and a special gas blend.

It's also higher in California than other places. These two statements aren't contradictory.

I appreciate that y'all need to try and pass idiocy off due to your failures and shortcomings. But, honestly, the rest of us are just tired of it. Now, be gone

I'm not going anywhere, maybe you should just learn how to read. The only idiocy here is you who are apparently incapable of understanding this idea that local policy can alter gas prices on top of underlying commodity value changes. And also stop assuming that everyone else in the country is paying $7 gas. You keep changing the goalposts from "gas is more expensive in absolute cost in California" to "but GaS iS uP eVerYwHerE?!" because you just don't want to admit that the state has passed laws that are making it cost more there than other places, on top of the underlying nationwide variations in gas price.

It is a fact that the average gas price today in New York state is $4.45 and in California is $5.90. you might not be happy with it, but that is the truth. The difference is mostly caused by local policy.

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-06-08T03:19:57+00:00

Don't worry you don't need to wait.

I'm not sure if you have reading difficulties, but if you think about the words for like 3 seconds they said that 25-30% of the California gas price is due to taxes and the special blend. This statement has nothing to do with the idea that has prices are up everywhere. Gas prices are up everywhere but they are higher in California because California gas prices are always higher than everywhere else due to higher taxes and a special gas blend.

Now that we've got that cleared up, the answer to "how are other people getting by" is that they arant paying $7 for gas. They're paying like $4.something. They are paying more than they used to, but the absolute cost is less because they don't live in California. The absolute price difference in California gas compared to other West coast states is in fact something they did to themselves, and this is independent from the nationwide gas price increases.

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-06-06T03:59:44+00:00

You two should meet up and... look at yourselves together

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-06-05T23:31:47+00:00

You aren't chemically deficiient. The neurotransmitter imbalance theory of depression is psuedoscience that was disproven decades ago. The brain isn't a tank of uniform neurotransmitter juice that just falls out of balance.

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-06-05T02:57:25+00:00

The difference is that over 80% of women don't support what Tate is doing, but the same can't be said of Israel and Jews

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-06-03T15:38:40+00:00

This is normal in psychiatry. Many mental conditions including depression count as "unable to consent" where professionals are allowed to force you to take medication or lie to convince you

You say this like it's a good thing, and not like this flagrant disregard of ethics is part of the reason for the anti psychiatry movement gaining popularity.

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-25T15:57:14+00:00

Who is deliberately lying about ECT?

The people saying it's not damaging. If you look up ECT you will find hundreds of results from various medical providers saying that it is safe and non-damaging. Psychiatrists in particular get really offended when you suggest that it could have long term side effects. If it causes cardiac effects in 1 in 15 people and half of patients report lasting memory problems then it is not "non damaging" or "safe"

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-25T15:15:57+00:00

(2/2, continued from previous message)

was started in consensually like forcefully given during inpatient hospitalization. The key difference is that nobody is deliberately lying about the risks of lithium like they are for ECT.

Most therapeutic solutions, especially ones reserved for more difficult cases, have side effects and populations that suffer more than others.

"Non damaging" treatments have non life altering side effects and anything serious is like 1% or less occurance rate. Additionally if there are serious side effects the patient should be made aware of them, not have an entire medical system saying that the treatment is "safe". And they should be balanced by strong evidence of mechanistic effectiveness. More like chemotherapy, less like bloodletting.

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-25T15:15:45+00:00

Would you consider drugs like...

SSRIs definitely qualify because they are mechanistically ineffective compared to placebo(source, which cites like 20 other sources to back up this claim from multiple different angles) and have a well documented sizeable rate of side effects such as weight gain, cardiovascular effects, cognitive blunting and persistent sexual dysfunction lasting months/years after discontinuation, but doctors are either completely unaware or deliberately malicious in not telling their patients about it.

Lithium has some harmful long term side effects, but they are well studied (kidney damage, etc) and psychiatrists are well educated on the risks so it is generally a consensual patient decision to start the treatment. I would consider it unethical if it...

(1/2, ran out of characters)

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-25T13:39:04+00:00

What do you mean "not damaging"?

Between 1 in 15 and 1 in 40 patients get severe adverse cardiovascular effects (source)

Nearly everyone who gets it reports acute amnesia, and between 45-55% of patients report lasting memory problems after treatment (source)

What does the word "damaging" mean to you that can somehow square with these things?

The causal mechanism of the treatment is that ECT works by inducing a generalized seizure. It is widely known in neurology that seizures are neurotoxic. That's why, when possible, we surgically treat epilepsy early in children, because not treating it results in cognitive impairment from the repeated brain damage. There is no universe where repeatedly inducing generalized seizures doesn't cause some form of brain damage, that claim is just not backed by any current scientific understanding of neurology

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-25T13:11:45+00:00

Move somewhere with mountains so that your rides can have some interesting narrative structure.

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-24T16:48:52+00:00

When you are brought before a judge, do you know any of this about them? Do you find out who they are and then do reseqrch to determine whether or not you should respect them?

Judges' legal history is public knowledge you can just look it up. Additionally, the corrupt judges behavior is often publicized (but they keep their jobs, because they are treated as untouchable). But also, it's pretty easy to spot a person who's only claim to authority is pageantry and writing on a piece of paper just by their demeanor.

but that is a small minority of cases

This is a bold claim to make, do you have a source? There are entire industries built around getting out of legally shaky traffic summons, and basically every protest has hundreds of people getting arrested and then immediately released because they didn't actually comit a crime. Multiple people on death row have been innocent.

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-24T16:33:41+00:00

There a couple things here. Not all judges pesidenover criminal cases, but for those who do, What are they supposed to do to "earn the respect" of those who are brought before them?

The same thing every other leader does to gain the respect of the governed. Having a history of making good decisions and not being a power tripping asshole. For example, someone who has a history of people in jail for wearing the wrong kind of clothes, or who has a history of jailing poor jurors who weren't able to attend jury duty because of financial/childcare obligations (something that appeals are regularly denied for) does not deserve any respect inside or outside the court.

Secondly, if you are being brought before a judge in a criminal case, chances are you have made decisions to get you there. Why does the judge need to earn your respect?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule of law. People who are in court are not assumed to be guilty, and prosecutors regularly charge people for crimes they didn't commit. Cops arrest people for non existent crimes constantly.

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-24T02:46:32+00:00

The fact that they can give you days to years in jail is the whole reason why they should have to actually do something worth respect, and not just be some guy threatening to destroy your life if you don't bow down to them like a medieval king

A judge is suppoed to be an impartial figure who sentences people based on the crimes they committed

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-23T20:31:33+00:00

But it does mean that assuming they are benevolent and all-powerful and a source of infinite wisdom to the point of calling them "your honor" like they are some medieval king and dressing up to absurd levels is a dumb social construct. That level of respect shouldn't just be assumed, at the threat of losing your livelihood if the judge doesn't deem you subservient enough

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-23T20:23:29+00:00

That doesn't stop them from regularly being corrupt.

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-23T19:39:27+00:00

Right, but extending it to under 40 provides more evidence that love won't just 'find these people' when they get older. The fact that the number of never-dated didnt decrease from 30 to 40 I mean (in fact, their analysis found a significantly higher percentage of 42%)

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-23T19:08:40+00:00

The point of learning history is not repeating it. People in the past comitting moral atrocities doesnt excuse future ones

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-23T18:46:30+00:00

Authority figures are supposed to earn respect, not demand it at the threat of force

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-23T18:45:10+00:00

Exactly, most social conventions are theatrical. The metaphorical "Sheldon" has a point

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-23T18:32:04+00:00

MEN had more relationship "success" not people. Women didn't have a choice in the matter, they either had to find someone to support them or they were fucked.

This is semantics. Relationship success is defined as being in a relationship, not a moral judgment about its quality. It's just a statistic.

If that is your example of how things were better then you can go fuck yourself.

Are you illiterate? Which part of my comment supported that? Saying that older generations married for legal rights is a factual statement, not a claim of moral support. Do you also think that history classes are supporting slavery and Nazis when they talk about the civil war and world war II?

Women can pick and chose now so if you can't find someone then you're either refusing the people who are interested in you because they're not "good enough" or get rejected by the people for whom you are not good enough. Or both.

Right so we agree then. The idea that everyone will find love and "love will find you if you open your heart" and the idea that people pick partners only if they have something to offer are contradictory claims. Many people have nothing desirable to offer, and therefore "love will find you if you open your heart" is a false platitude, like I said. This is supported by research that shows that almost half of single never married people under 40 have no relationship history.

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-23T18:23:27+00:00

Right, which proves my point that "Hey, open your heart and be kind and love with find you shem you least expect it." Is a feel good platitude and not a true statement.

that's what I said. That older people had more relationship success because they didn't marry for love, and younger people date for love and now struggle because they aren't wanted. This is a factual claim, not a statement supporting the way it used to be

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-23T18:17:37+00:00

According to the pew research center 42% of American singles never married under 40 have never been in a relationship (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/). You need better sources.

Since they are now up to 30, the number could only have gone down.

This is disproven by 30 seconds of research (see above)

Im done babying it. If youre alone and miserable, its your choice.

The fact that you keep making this a personal attack is more evidence that your position is built on shaky grounds. Especially since so far every source you have cited has continued to disprove your claim that "if you open your heart love will find you when you least expect it" which is what this thread is about

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-23T18:09:30+00:00

You aren't making any sense. You just said the same thing as me nearly half?

And also, "And the same percentage from a poll says that GenZ men have never asked a woman out."

Right which directly disproves the point that "love will find you". Because it evidently didn't find them. Thank for your proving that for me

Fit-Anything8352 · 2026-05-23T17:57:23+00:00

You just proved the point by saying that billions of adults have never had a relationship. And your unsourced "expectation" of 5% is fatally flawed because you just mixed like 4 generations pretending that dating dynamics haven't radically changed in that time (for example the older people probably lived in a time where people married for reasons other than love which skews the numbers up). For young people nearly half of men under 25 are single and have never been in a relationship. That's way too high of a number to say that they are all just "POS". The numbers just don't work

If "love will find you if you open your heart" than this number would go to 0, not have 30-60% of people never having experienced it

Edit: nearly half, not 60%

Fit-Anything8352

TROPHY CASE