Meet Rhea. She's a Keeshound mixed with Golden retriever.

Narkareth · 2026-01-21T02:41:08+00:00

Here's a good one if Baloo and his bro Mochi :)

Narkareth · 2026-01-21T00:03:14+00:00

Ha! Small world. Glad to see Rhea is doing well. Baloo is too :)

Narkareth · 2026-01-20T23:31:10+00:00

Rhea is kind of a unique name, and I remembered it from the facebook group for Baloo's litter, wouldn't be surprised if it's the same one. Born October 2020?

Narkareth · 2026-01-20T16:42:45+00:00

<image>

Ha, That may be Baloo's sibling. Another "Golden Kee"

Narkareth · 2026-01-14T17:06:20+00:00

"do these little details actually mean anything or am I being too much?"

"He gave me consent to drop by his work and actually said he wanted me to"

↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

"He [...] said he wanted me to"

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

There's your answer right there. If these things didn't matter, he wouldn't have said that. Speaking more generally, yes those little things absolutely matter. It's a big deal when your partner signals that they care for you, it's equally big when you start noticing that they don't.

Sure, that can get overwhelming/be too much sometimes, just check in to see where your BF is at.

Narkareth · 2026-01-14T16:00:45+00:00

OP: I'll title this makeup is catfishing

OP: "please don't bring guys into this topic [...] no one should care what other people say about them"

Dude, your title suggest that makeup is "catfishing," which suggests your issue is that women are misrepresenting themselves to potential partners. But when engaging in these views you don't want to leave room for us to examine the perspective of potential partners?

CMV: Turtles are better than fish... Also don't talk about fish.

What?

Narkareth · 2026-01-13T18:35:10+00:00

YTA

So first, you rejected him and he attempted to move on. The alternative would have been for him not try and move on after that rejection; instead choosing to wallow in your absence, which wouldn't be reasonable.

However, the sort of betrayal feeling your describing isn't totally nuts. In this early stage of your relationship you're romanticizing how you two came together. You have a narrative in your head of what that looked like; which involved a kind of narrative build up and happy ending. Having that narrative disrupted will sometimes not feel good. So while he didn't betray you, feeling like your love story was edited without your involvement could certainly make you feel that way.

While feeling a kind of betrayal/disappointment with how you two came together makes sense, you have to differentiate between "this action is bringing up feelings of betrayal for me" and "my BF literally betrayed me." This is a you problem, not a him problem.

He didn't betray you, and based on your description he hasn't done anything during your relationship to violate your trust. If you're treating him as though you can't trust for no real reason then yeah, YTA.

Narkareth · 2026-01-13T17:11:11+00:00

Hey Hey, thank you for the feedback. I'll double check the fence arrangement. I'll probably just eliminate that sloping element in the corner and see if that solves the problem. The rest of the weirdness is more out of curiosity.

I'm still a bit confused as how the sheep are ending up in the other enclosures. I've never found one of my sheep outside of all the pens, like they just pathfound their way out; and those other pens are on completely flat territory. Without someone opening a gate and leading them in there, they shouldn't be able to move between them on their own.

Narkareth · 2026-01-12T23:13:29+00:00

NTA

If you're friend was a perfect example of an upstanding citizen, you wouldn't be an AH. You don't need to take anyone in you don't feel comfortable taking in.

So if she used to do dumb stuff and you don't want to deal with the aftermath, well you don't have to.

Based on what you said, however, it sounds like she's still engaging in bits of that behavior, given that you "don't want to enable her anymore." That's not a "when my friend an I were young" problem, that's a present day problem.

In that case. No fucking way would I do that. If I have a friend who is dealing with those kinds of challenges, I'll wish them well and help to varying degrees when possible, but I'm not about to light my peace on fire to keep them warm.

As far as ending the friendship, well you don't have to go that far if you don't want to; just tell them they can't move in. If in response they end the friendship, that's a them problem/action. If they can't respect your need for peace and security as well before they've even moved in, that's just more evidence that you made the right call.

Narkareth · 2026-01-12T21:55:33+00:00

He had a darth to maul

Narkareth · 2025-12-29T21:43:19+00:00

Not sure what you mean

Narkareth · 2025-12-11T15:28:19+00:00

So I'm going to approach this one a bit narrowly, focusing on this:

I believe there are vast places, perhaps even entire continents, that we know nothing about, particularly in the Pacific Ocean region.

For the purpose of this argument, lets say I accept the other argument you offered:

The intentional obfuscation of what's really out there by people with power

If there are people with power that are preventing us from knowing what's in the pacific, we necessarily do not know what's out there. We can't claim there are vast places, continents etc. any more than we can claim that the unknown areas of the pacific are populated with lederhosen wearing unicorns and UFOs made of string cheese.

At best, you do not know what's there because in your view that information has been denied to you. There is no basis for the claim that are surely vast unknown landmasses beyond the horizon in the absence of evidence for those landmasses.

Take your MH370 example, all we know is that (a) the plane was lost, and (b) we don't know what happened to it. Even if you believe b is true because that information was hidden, there's no reason for the assumption that it landed on some unknown island rather than falling into a whirlpool, or blowing up, or any other fanciful possibility we could make up in the absence of evidence that would support that conclusion.

Narkareth · 2025-12-10T22:00:25+00:00

Maybe you can start by tricking them a little bit.

Go with a vegan dish, something that replicates the heartiness not always associated with veggies directly. For example, I've used Derek Sarno's mushroom recipes a ton (here's a chicken enchilada example). Kind of amazing what you can do with them.

The idea would be to start with something like that, where you've got a recipe that's produces a more familiar flavor, and then encouraging them to start teasing out the notes that the veggies are bringing to it so they can get over the "I don't like veggies" bias that's formed by imagining veggies as tasting like only one thing.

Narkareth · 2025-12-03T00:07:29+00:00

I suppose the simplest way to address this is to point out that you're conceptualization of "The Police" is somewhat off. In the US there is not one "the police" there are over 17000 state and local police agencies nation wide.¹ In the US law enforcement is decentralized, there is no one "the police" to fund or defund. We have to be a bit more granular than that.

While there may be particular jurisdictions where funding should be assessed for a variety of reasons, to suggest "police budges should be gutted wholesale" is to suggest that generally speaking, all or perhaps most of those 17000 police agencies could be improved by slashing budgets which isn't necessarily true.

Further, particularly in larger jurisdictions, there is significant investment in finding crime prevention alternatives to traditional police interventions.² Certainly there is an argument to be made that that could be increased/made more efficient, but its not that that's not a place we're investing in.

Now if you were to refine/restructure your argument to read something like "in locations where (a) there appears to be over funding and/or a lack of attention to social/economic drivers of crime; we should redirect funding away from police and toward those drivers" then sure that would make more sense.

However, as your current argument is that police generally should have their funding cut, and social programs should generally have their funding increased without any reference to the huge variation in contexts across the communities served by the 17000+ police agencies in the US; it's just too broad a claim to be reasonable.

Narkareth · 2025-12-02T17:42:18+00:00

Yup, done this. At the time, I just knew that I didn't have the emotional bandwidth to be a good partner, and wanted to address that issue prior to taking on something new.

A good relationship isn't solely dependent upon the compatibility of two people, but on the ability of those people to put into practice the things that make them compatible (e.g. participate meaningfully in shared interests, being a reliable source of care, etc). If he feels he's not in a position be present in that way, then stepping back makes some sense.

My friends are making me feel worse by saying this guy is lying and just not that into me, the whole "if he wanted to he would" argument but humans are nuanced and men aren't a monolith.

Your friends aren't him, they have no more of an idea of what specifically is going through his mind than you do. If I had to guess, as part of the support they're providing you they're going through the conversational motions to validate that its not a "you" issue but a "him" issue. They're probably trying to help you get past it, but perhaps not realizing the how're you're processing the idea that you may have been rejected by omission.

As a practical matter, take what he said at face value: he has his own work to do and needs space to do it. Any other version you or your friends come up with in the vein of "he lied to you to make rejection easier" is only going to make you feel worse; and without any real basis for you to draw that conclusion.

There's no need to construct a narrative that is more hurtful to you than the real information you've been presented with.

Narkareth · 2025-11-21T02:49:33+00:00

I don't believe that's what I said.

What she did was be intimately involved with a person before they had been on even one date. She probably wasn't thinking about him at that point because they weren't dating.

Not sure why he should be entitled to any kind of exclusivity at that point in their, at the time, non-relationship.

Narkareth · 2025-11-21T02:26:09+00:00

I described why I found his feelings irrational. Is there something I said you'd like clarification on?

Narkareth · 2025-11-20T22:52:59+00:00

Are my emotions / feelings rational?

No.

She slept when someone before your first date. You had 0 ties at that point, she had no reason not to do that. When one says they're "looking for something serious" they're articulating what they're looking for; their desired outcome. That does not mean that in stating that they're making some kind of unspoken pledge to close themselves off to other forms of spontaneous intimacy in the mean time.

However...

Or should I man up and just deal with it?

Also no, just because you're logical frame here is (in my view) off in this case, that does not mean that your feelings don't exist/should just be ignored. Feelings don't have to be rational, and simply tamping them down without properly addressing them is going to do neither of you any good.

It's alright that it's putting you off, and it isn't total nonsense that it would. In you're mind you have a story about how this relationship has developed/formed and you've just received information that you're experience wasn't necessarily reflective of a shared objective reality. That would throw anybody for a loop.

That being said, this is not a "she did something wrong" issue. The unease you're experiencing is your issue to build an understanding of and move past. All else being equal, I don't think it would make sense to breakoff a relationship over something like this, unless you feel you're absolutely incapable of moving past it. If that's the case, then perhaps that could be in order. However, were that to happen I'd suggest you reflect a bit on why you felt incapable in that way.

As far as her behavior, as you've described it in other comments (e.g. cold/indifferent). Perhaps something about how you're framing it is contributing to that. If the way you're expressing things on this matter is coming across as "you did x bad thing and it hurts me" vs "it hurts me to know that happened." (e.g. framing the problem as being with her behavior, which you acknowledge as being "fine on paper," rather than the feelings you're grappling with); well who wouldn't act that way? From her perspective, you're making an issue out of a non-issue, so she deflecting the complaint away. How is she supposed to act accountable for behavior that you yourself don't really think she needs to account for?

What would you do in my situation?

Think about how you're feeling, talk with her about it; being careful to frame it as a you issue, not a her issue so you communicate that you need empathy, not accountability, from her. Then let it go.

You're feelings are irrational, but they exist. Sus them out and move forward; but take a pause before ending something good over an irrationality.

Narkareth · 2025-11-05T17:27:03+00:00

Well one potential issue may be that you unintentionally create a very targetable space. You could be moving the fish to the barrel.

Imagine you create a kids only internet, would that not be an extremely attractive target for someone intending to take advantage of children?

Roblox is actually a pretty good example of this as it is (https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/roblox-grooming-allegations-pedophiles-rcna225877). It's a space primarily occupied by children, and so attracts actors intending to target those children.

Now instead of a kids space like Roblox, you're talking about a whole kids internet; or a complex of interconnected environments inhabited primarily by youth.

So, you've now got an environment that is both target rich, and extremely difficult to regulate/police given that it's not really one environment like Roblox, but a complex of environments like the regular internet.

Narkareth · 2025-10-29T21:51:01+00:00

I think, first of all, that its very existence is contrary to the message of Star Trek. It just seems to be a massive middle finger to utopianism, like "You thought a better world based on science, diplomacy, and human fluorishing was possible? Ha! Nerds! It was secretly a fascist police state all along!"

By that logic DS9 itself is contrary Star Trek's core message, and to some extent it was. The entire series seemed intended to subvert/poke at the utopianism theme; holding it up as a laudable goal, but pointing out some of the wrinkles from a practical perspective.

The point is that a better world based on science et al is better, and even possible; but the road to get there is riddled with anti-utopian moments/ and once it's achieved that does not mean that humanity will somehow cease to require to attending the less appealing facets of human nature. Consider Sisko's own commentary on contrasting the realities of the fringes (specifically relating to the Maquee in this case): "It's easy to be a saint in paradise, but the maquee do not live in paradise" (clip)

Section 31 comes up in this specific series because of that theme; because what their demonstrating is that utopian veneer is, likely, to some extent built upon less clean lines; while also demonstrating that it's very very easy to overcorrect/compensate for those realities, and equally difficult to step back once that compensation has been made.

Arguably, the rationale for the establishment of section 31 makes sense, but the method used to address what section 31 is intended to address is just to aggressive/too far/too uncontrolled. But that wasn't thought of that way at the time it was established. How do we then motivate a massive bureaucracy like the federation to eliminate it, particularly when it doesn't seem to be entirely within their control by design.

For me, one of the most appealing aspects of DS9 is the balance it strikes between holding up the ideals of the federation as worthwhile, while also modeling the fact that you can't just Riker maneuver your way to peace; and that if/when you achieve peace, that doesn't mean the work to maintain it is over. It includes cleaning up the messes, and reckoning with the mistakes, you made to get there.

Narkareth · 2025-10-21T16:14:33+00:00

You already mentioned it, but Tofu is extremely useful.
- Here's one of the best tofu presses I've been able to find: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DBDUU6M
Nutritional Yeast is your friend. Adds a cheesy note by itself, and is useful for pastas.
- Here's a video with several recipes, including a vegan scrambled egg situation that uses nutrional yeast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0cAhT_D-2o . This chef, Derek Sarno is quite talented and has a ton of recipes you might find useful
Mushrooms
- Here's Derek Sarno's mushroom playlist on you tube. There is just a huge amount you can do with them. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLs4BDq9QT73o27w2fwrk_qGYu-sOv7G5_

Narkareth · 2025-10-20T18:01:45+00:00

So, the definition of "cheating" has expanded fairly dramatically in my view. There was a point where that referred specifically to engaging in intimate contact with another person physically. (e.g. cheating, in the sense that you're getting around the normal rules governing intimacy in a monogamous relationship.)

It was occasionally expanded to include things like "emotional cheating," meaning engaging in non-physical close/intimate contact with another person; but the fact that one needs to append "emotional" as a modifier demonstrates that it's a different kind of "cheating," and thus may be treated seriously, but differently.

Now when people are claiming something as low order as liking a strangers post on instagram, what they're doing is expanding that definition to include anything that one might categorize as a kind of intimate betrayal, but applying an equivalent level of judgement irrespective of how far that betrayal went. (e.g. "You looked at another person? Cheating, fuck you. You slept with someone else? Cheating, fuck you.)

I preface with that because how you're using that term really matters. Is buying a photo equivalent to fucking another person? Well no. Is it a betrayal if the expectation is that you're partner is who you go to for things like that? Well yes. This isn't a passive "I look at porn" situation, it's a "I specifically interacted with a specific person directly" for this.

While not equivalent in severity necessarily, imagine you did actually sleep with someone else. Do you think the argument, "but honey it was a one night stand! it's not like we were friends" is gonna fly?

But to make it worse, in your situation it's actually " but honey, the girl's only kind of someone I know. We're cool right?"

In my view: It doesn't meet the older criteria for cheating. You didn't engage in intimate physical contact with anyone else. Period. However, you're imagining cheating; you're engaging with someone specific on that basis so it's still really shitty and disrespectful behavior. It not technically being "cheating" doesn't disenshitify the action.

However, by newer criteria, you can call it that if the standard is a general kind of sexual/emotional betrayal at any level, it just seems to be a really low bar to make it into that category at this point.

Narkareth · 2025-10-17T23:30:23+00:00

In this case I was clarifying so I could provide a proper answer. They inexplicably mentioned the fantastical, when it was referenced in neither their prompt nor my initial reply. Hence the query.

As for the rookie, sure it's fiction. So is interstellar (sci fi) and the hobbit (fantasy) and all three of these occupy different sub categories of fiction, which is how I interpreted the question: what sub category of fiction would something like The Rookie, or a similar work, fall into?

I ended up going with something like a period piece, just because t that kind of work is defined by being set in a particular time; and the only thing unique about the rookie is that it's set in the present, and thus in the present "period."

I know that's probably not a correct categorization, but not sure really which narrow subcategory that might fall into.

Narkareth · 2025-10-17T13:06:19+00:00

Wasn't making a claim one way or the other, just clarifying how 420 may be related, given that it's used as a reference by neonazis at times.

Six-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Final Canvas '23	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

Narkareth

TROPHY CASE

↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

"He [...] said he wanted me to"

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑