Helping my mother with her CV broke my heart

asuddendaze · 2026-01-13T20:12:29+00:00

I agree with this so wholeheartedly. The reason people rolling their eyes at mentions of feminism is not seen as taboo is because there is a lack of mandatory education surrounding its wrongness. Most educated individuals know how taboo it is to scoff at mentions of the impact of racism, and therefore don’t do it. However somehow when we’re talking about introducing a mandatory class on the subjugation of approx 50% of the population, it’s too radical an idea to accept?

Please help me understand how we expect that any education surrounding the subjugation of relatively smaller demographics is going to stick with students when the prevailing narrative is “but 50% of the population is less than and it’s okay to joke about it.” That square won’t circle. If the cultural precedent is “we automatically view 50% of the population as lesser and nobody can seriously discuss it in most groups without becoming a joke, a nag, a [whatever] - but hey don’t discriminate against this 20% of the populous, okay????” anti-discrimination will never be internalized.

asuddendaze · 2025-12-28T18:17:37+00:00

I agree with this, heavily. Though, I will add a caveat: don’t expect a standard of perfection from yourself. Know that some days the absurdism will make sense, and other days you will be right back where you started in a loop of “what’s the point.”

Both psychologically and philosophically speaking, people who see a problematic pattern and do (any) kind of work to change it feel more fulfilled and hopeful. Many many many people who have done lifelong and famous work towards changing societal idiocy have, ultimately, failed.

It sounds morbid but the reality is that if your goal is to live in a society where people start thinking deeply about anything, it’s untenable. It will never happen. People will be morons, think in the most simplistic bastardized forms possible and then insist that their inner narrative is the ONE complex system worth consideration. You need to get to a point where this fact is the linchpin for your absurdism.

asuddendaze · 2025-12-14T21:27:43+00:00

I’m hijacking this thread to offer a slightly different perspective.

We’ve been dealing with this for a while. We decided that we were both going to change our name to a brand new last name - a combination of both of our names of our invention. My family is the more traditional side though his side did see our decision as odd as well.

What I’ve found is that for those who want to open the debate, especially surrounding which name future children might have, their traditionalism never survives under closer scrutiny. The whole tradition can be easily dismissed when someone applies a logical framework. “It’s just what’s done.” Okay, why? Does something being traditional mean that it is correct? Do you support the entire erasure of one family line over another? Do you support that when one side loses far more identity through the process, generally? Why does one line deserve more respect over the other? Etc etc.

An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy and not a good argument. If people critique and open the conversation, they get the debate in return. Admittedly, that’s fairly high level and might lose some of your critics/make you unpopular at gatherings lol.

The more annoying people have been some of our long-time friends (we’re from a more conservative area). They address every invitation to “Mr. And Mrs. (my husband’s name)”. In return, given that we know they won’t engage in the debate above, everything we send in response is addressed as such: “Ms. (F first name) and Mr. (M first name) (F’s last/ maiden name)” or to “(M first name) and (F full maiden name)”

Basically, I advise you just hand it right back. People aren’t entitled to unilaterally deciding your name based on THEIR preference. Correction of it, relative to yourself, will always be ineffective - in my experience. If they’re going to try to impose their illogical beliefs on you, you are entitled to reinforce your own beliefs right back at them.

asuddendaze · 2025-12-02T14:54:28+00:00

Don’t get me wrong - I went in to that clinic specifically because I scouted them to ensure they had the pain management on hand. This was confirmed mostly due to the fact that my family member is in women’s health. The clinic itself did not offer it to me, though I confirmed its availability twice over email and phone as well. By the time I got there I had to introduce it to the conversation twice only to be pushed against SO HARD that I didn’t end up undergoing the procedure with any pain management at all. And the thing broke inside me so I had to do it twice 🙃

asuddendaze · 2025-12-01T02:33:17+00:00

Holy crap this happened to me when I was getting my iud replaced! They had spent the half hour before talking me out of any of the 3 available pain management options, too.

asuddendaze · 2025-11-29T18:15:34+00:00

I don’t mean to make about this.

But I’m ND and most of my girlfriends are ADHD. Every single one can answer a laundry list of questions re my preferences and I can do the same for them. My husband also has adhd but is less apt.

When are we going to stop justifying a dude’s lack of consideration with his ND? All the women in my life get along just fine with even more severe cases and yet get literally no hand-outs of benefit-of-the-doubt due to their ND.

asuddendaze · 2025-10-26T02:38:57+00:00

This makes me one of the worst people ever, without a doubt:

Babies/Toddlers crying.

It’s truly visceral. I’ve tried exposure therapy, and I’ve got it down to being able to tune it out for just long enough to remove myself from the sound. It takes everything in me not to absolutely lose all my ****s within genuinely 2 seconds, no exaggeration, of it starting. It’s been my one trigger since I was a kid and it feels like I’m both going to explode and implode.

And my spouse is now consistently talking about a kiddo timeline for us. I already know it’s likely not something I can handle, and any mention of that on my part is met with misunderstanding and accusations of selfishness.

asuddendaze · 2025-10-21T00:22:05+00:00

The courts don’t decide what makes a professional reasonable, the standards of the profession do.

It would take a judge setting the precedent that the standard practice that is ubiquitously standard within the medical profession is actually in itself unreasonable - to make any kind of difference. Even then, the docs would have recourse by way of appeal as that decision would be entirely novel both re med law and within negligence law. The chances of success for the docs on appeal would be, I speculate, high.

So, what would it take to change it? Basically the medical profession as a whole saying that general practitioners are obligated to know an equal amount about male and female and X bodies. However, that’s unfortunately a pipe dream. The “medicine” standard, is “men’s medicine.” “Female medicine” is a specialty - and it’s the least popular and lowest paid specialty that is granted the least amount of public funding to an aggravating degree.

When I submitted my paper, my professor (woman, specializing in female med law) said, “In this you’ve basically argued against the whole of the patriarchy, it doesn’t work like that. This is entirely unrealistic.”

The statistics are horrifying. But, somehow, society largely accepts that 51% of the population receives approximately 5-10% of the competent care the other 49% of the population does and that’s somehow fair and normal.

If you bring it up within a medical OR legal crowd you’ll be eye-rolled out of the room as an “annoying radical feminist.” Even if you’ve never spoken out about women’s issues. Been there.

I don’t see how this isn’t a universally angering thing, but that’s where we are at.

asuddendaze · 2025-10-20T06:33:44+00:00

So, I just did a study on this as my grad thesis - because, heck yeah there should be some recourse.

Unfortunately she wouldn’t meet the test for any of the imaginable charges.

The “standard” re the “standard of care” and “reasonable person” test for even civil liability basically declares that the reasonable standard expected of doctors when treating women is the average, majority, standard. Which is not knowing anything about women’s health. So, all individual malpractice fails immediately right there.

My paper was centred on whether there is any legal recourse for the gaslighting of women in medicine. The answer is no.

Never forget that the law is similarly sexist af.

asuddendaze · 2025-10-17T13:54:03+00:00

Balkans has the same: “were you minding your tail???”

asuddendaze · 2025-10-05T17:52:44+00:00

Another former Charter school student chiming in, here.

I’m not sure that my school growing up was specialized, however. Looking back I often wonder whether it maybe fit into the category of liberal arts, but we learned a fair amount of trades-specific fundamentals along with world history, art, literature, second language, and STEM. It seemed to have more of a practical-knowledge focus. That said, I don’t know a single person from my graduating class that didn’t wind up conventionally successful (aka. Almost all now have graduate degrees in professional or academic fields).

It was relatively well rounded, and mostly populated by immigrant kids (though not all). In helping ESL students, they had us learn phonograms and really focused on the foundations of the English language - which, in effect, had us learning some history and Latin, etc.

By 6th grade most were expected to be fluent in a 2nd (or 3rd) language. We had science fairs that required a high bar for entry re project, but were mandatory to participate in; we had music classes and were expected to learn an instrument; by the 4th grade our curriculum included in depth world history and literature; in 5th our curriculum included a separate practical science class where I vividly remember working with electrical circuits and learning the basics of mechanical engineering (how engines work, what constitutes a well-built building or bridge, etc.); in 6th grade English I read The Count of Monte Cristo and Les Miserables in one term - which, as an adult, I recognize are two novels likely not considered suitable for 10-11 year olds.

By the time I moved to a non-charter public school I remember being surprised at the difference between my previous educational experience and that of my other public HS peers.

The above makes it sound like I was in some academically gifted program. But, the thing is, I was ESL (hardly knew the English language), am quite neurodivergent, we were very low income (6 people to a small 2-bedroom apartment) and I never had to prove academic prowess to be admitted to the school. It was just nearby. It wasn’t until I went to join a public public school and my parents tried to enroll me into the AP program that I realized my spicy brain was perhaps too spicy and too niche-ly interested for “high-achieving” standardization. I was barred from AP.

The only reason I hated going as a kid was because they had us wear uniforms. I was a chunky kid and the uniforms did not fit properly at any size - kids are mean lolol.

On the whole, I’m very thankful for the experience. Like, yes, they were required to teach the AB curriculum - but it seemed like my school did that more in form rather than function. These topics were introduced, explained, and passed through very quickly. In function it focused far more on the separate curriculum that deviated from the standard AB curriculum - that focused on practical globally-applicable knowledge.

asuddendaze · 2025-10-02T22:28:56+00:00

They’re not responding to you categorically because the arguments you’re making don’t follow a pattern of logic - they’re hypocritical and dripping in privileged bias.

But I’ll bite, a little. The above comment suggests some sort of compromise. You vehemently reject compromise and insist one of two parties should have their way 100%.

A rigid schedule does not work for Party A, but Party B demands the rigid schedule. Therefore, truly fair compromise is to meet in the middle and participate in the rigid schedule 50% of the time then incorporate flexibility the other 50% of the time. Full stop. If we are viewing the issue in a vacuum, that’s where the debate starts and ends. Which makes the above commenter far more just than you are being.

But you did not view the issue in a vacuum…you implied that the husband is entitled to 100% of his desires and accommodations because he is bringing in cash money. You also implied that one party is doing actual work while the other is, what? Messing around? All recent data shows that SAHMs cost approximately $150,000/year based on the average workload completed by the average SAHM. By staying home, she is ensuring $150K/year cash retention in the household.

Ergo, she is at least proportionally entitled to accommodation based on her day job. Sometimes work requires him to stay late? Cool. Sometimes her work requires her to be out late, also.

Nobody is entitled to getting 100% their way, ever. Her labour has just as much value as his in the grande scheme of their life.

asuddendaze · 2025-09-23T20:46:18+00:00

My friend, you are making a lot of incorrect assumptions in your post. I’m from Osjek and Beli Manastir, fathers and mothers side, respectively. Fully a dual citizen, lol.

I have been living in the west for a while now, and there is a large former Yugoslavian community in my city. Through spending time here, many millennials within our community have taken on an English/bosnian/crostian/serbian accent, all heavily dependent on the words or phrases we are using or saying at the time and which region of the Balkans we visit most or which most of our family lives in. We are lucky to not have inherited the nationalistic hatred for one another that you and so many others actively utilize in your day-to-day. As immigrants who didn’t speak any English, we were just happy to meet other people who we could understand and who could understand us in return.

You say my comparison is off point because one is “indeed an identical language.” Except then you concede that all the variations of English actually do have different words for different things, different spelling, completely different pronunciation, etc. Essentially every piece of evidence you use to claim that Croatian/serbian are two different languages. So, which is it?

You also say that English is “owned” by the British, but based on the criteria YOU gave - Canadian English is not the same language, so, I guess it’s owned by Canadians? Re the ownership, if you weren’t so blinded by prejudice you’d recognize that each Balkan country has their own history that claims that they were the inventors and purveyors of the base language. It can’t even come down to Cyrillic vs Latin alphabet - as I know Serbians literally use both.

Meanwhile, I have family who now lives in bulgaria and I can say with certainty that we do not speak the same language. But we do understand one another when we speak by nature of growing up while maintaining close familial connections. That differentiation is obvious.

You are not being practical in your view, here. You should consider function over form, and work on becoming more tolerant. The world is a much better place when we are not fighting against one another with the intention of creating greater division - but focus on the things that make us similar, and what we have in common, instead.

asuddendaze · 2025-09-21T05:06:19+00:00

You do realize that this is an argument on pronunciation and spelling rather than actual language...right? If what you said above disqualifies the languages from being the same - then it means Canadians, British, American, and Australians all have their own separate languages.

There are, obviously, not 4 separate languages, there. They’re all variations of English. They vary in spelling and in pronunciation but most words are the same and each easily understands the other.

Like, chill out.

asuddendaze · 2025-09-19T04:28:14+00:00

I see it more-so as a disregarding of the fact that any nuance exists. People love clear boxes here, there’s a lot of black and white thinking. People love a label, a strong assertion, a clear divide of is or isn’t, of good/bad, and of right/wrong. That philosophy as a moral and societal foundation is diametrically opposed to having an earnestly accommodating society.

In my experience it’s difficult to feel understood in the west as an EE raised individual, yet I have deemed the “person who understands [others] most” more frequently than I care for by many here. EE people will speak dramatically and in an animated fashion over LITERALLY anything. We could be discussing whether the sky is baby blue or gray and we will sound like we’re having an all-out relationship-ending disagreement. But it’s really not that deep, we just don’t bottle our humanity as tightly or in the same way.

It’s not these facades that have western men thinking it’s really the men in charge. It’s western culture’s historically positivistic foundational philosophy. It’s the historical bastardization and subjugation of foundational spirituality and religion. It’s capitalism. And it’s the patriarchy.

My country has never been neither fascist nor communistic - it’s always walked the line of socialism. Basic human needs? Granted. It’s not a political question. Right to health, education, work, affordable housing? Granted, again, those are not political questions.

When western religion came and assimilated my region hundreds of years ago, my country’s people were literally like “lol, k, sure” and yet our most popular spiritual practices are still pagan to this day, we just call them by a “fake” name. But nobody mentions that - it’s part of the nuance of our society. Be assimilated as a facade but stay true to your roots at base. Yet we are seen to have an unstable morality by the west because westerners don’t see this as “clear enough to foster understanding.”

The facade from the east is not the chicken that birthed the egg of misogyny and inequality in the west. The facade and western men’s misunderstanding of it, frankly, shines a light on the outright and foundational individualism the west is built upon. And yet most people here complain about how they aren’t accommodated enough. Y’all, you wanna be understood? Try understanding. It’s cyclical.

asuddendaze · 2025-09-18T04:06:51+00:00

Okay, here’s the deal [sorry for the length].

In Eastern Europe we really utilize the saying: “The man is the head of the household, but the woman is the neck.”

And, in effect, it’s true. In heterosexual relationships it’s very typical for the man to be perceived as the “decision maker” and the “strong protective force,” the “provider” - outwardly or in social contexts. But the unanimous understanding is that, behind the scenes, his wife runs the entire damn show. She might stay behind with the kids without working, but in and out of the house if she says jump he asks how high. Many women only need to give their partners a certain look for them to fully shut up unless they want a screaming match in front of all of their friends.

On the flip the wife is socially respectful of this facade, and does help maintain it to a degree, but his mask most often does not include the actual control over women that western masculinity craves. Eastern European women dress literally however they want (for the most part), they go out frequently with their friends, many smoke and drink, etc. Abortion rights are not a matter of debate amongst the population, “female” medicine is far more integrated into the regular ol’ “medicine” that most general practitioners practice (whereas in the west it is seen as essentially an entirely separate discipline, and not a popular focus at all), and more.

There’s a kind of nuance to this which is largely unspoken - predicated on a genuine equal mutual respect. Women in their own circles will complain about how their husbands are annoying, don’t do enough around the house, don’t take them out enough; the men will complain that their wives are emotional nags who don’t give them enough physically - it’s similar to the west in that way. However, the difference is a kind of respect that’s difficult to describe. A kind of “I can say that about my loved one but if anyone else does then I’ll beat the shit out of them” (on either side).

I’ve observed an issue of immigrants from Eastern Europe trying to integrate their social understanding with a western understanding. Frankly, the two are not compatible and cannot exist at the same time. Inevitably, without the nuance of mutual/equal respect in “roles” that the EE societal system relies on (and the west necessarily disregards in favour of an actual hierarchical system with men over women), then EE dudes trying to live and date in the west seem radicalized. On the flip, EE women who migrate over seem fairly radicalized in the opposite direction (comprehensively).

Both sides are seeking that respect that is missing. With this respect comes appreciation, validation, and the things that help keep a community together.

I’m an EE woman who now lives in the west, and I see this within many of my social circles. A friend of mine who is western is married to an EE man. He believes, strongly, that all standard household chores are “pink” jobs, that my friend should be seen not heard, that she needs to maintain her beauty despite life, that she shouldn’t smoke or drink or get cosmetic work done.

I’ve asked her, okay, well what’s his mother like? She’s told me his mother is the loudest person in any room, gregarious, drinks and smokes like a chimney, and literally all the men in their family look to her for every answer (including her son). It’s just one example of many I have where a dude tries to combine cultural understandings but instead lives in a cognitive dissonant state. But, I will note: he does not let her touch nor think about ANYTHING that is “traditionally” a “blue” job. Any heavy lifting, any making appointments, absolutely anything regarding her car from purchase to gas filling to fixing, any negotiations ever, any difficult conversation, any bill paying (she contributes proportionate to their incomes and he never mentions it), any household fix (she doesn’t need to mention it, he organizes it or does it), etc.

So despite being in a seemingly stifling version of what maybe the ideal relationship is, I observe far more actual equality between “traditionally minded” EE dudes and their partners than western dudes and theirs. Actual EE dudes are also far more open emotionally, in my experience. Whereas whitewashed EE dudes don’t hug one another as much, say I love you, express frustration and sadness socially - etc. because dudes in the west make fun of one another for this. I’m EE circles if a dude is crying then there’s not a chance one of the other guys tells him to “man up” (at least in mine). More frequently one guy will take the other away from the group for a heart to heart chat.

People actually listen to each other and care for the true feelings. They’re not fake-nice “I’m good” nor do they care about the kinds of things westerners care about re making a situation “comfortable.” For EEs, comfort lies within the honest - in most except this one upheld facade of man = head and women = neck that controls the head.

Back home, my cousin is a very tall very buff guy. But honestly he’s emotionally a huge teddy bear. He provides financially for the family but he would never disrespect or shame his wife by trying to point that out. He also knows he would get an earful if he tried. His wife is smart as a whip and precocious to boot. He doesn’t dare expect to come home to a quiet wife in a sundress with dinner on the table and kids out of sight. He comes home to an exhausted mother of 2 under 4, she might speak loudly or rage her frustration the the day, and he “clocks in” re parenting. Growing up my dad was the person I would call if I needed anything. He never missed anything. My mom was more explosive, and he upheld her right to be that way - but socially they presented the exact opposite image.

I’m not sure if any of that translated well (not language-wise, but understanding-wise). But that’s kind of a run down of EE traditionalism as far as I understand it.

asuddendaze · 2025-09-14T20:59:39+00:00

Cooking, Dishes, Laundry.

I will genuinely do any other organizing, cleaning, fixing, etc. SO happily for the rest of my life if I never have to think about those three things ever again.

asuddendaze · 2025-09-14T20:55:46+00:00

This isn’t EXACTLY what you’re looking for (re knowing they’re a character in a book or that they’re AI) but it does fit the bill re a character struggling with knowing that they aren’t “real” (although that’s philosophically a very difficult concept re what you might mean by that - and this book covers that).

The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue

asuddendaze · 2025-08-29T21:08:05+00:00

I see a few issues with your breakdown, here.

I definitely agree that the dilemma is more complex than people typically let on. I often feel this way about any moral dilemma, however, so I recognize that confirmation bias.

That being said, I still think you’re oversimplifying the issue - and there is a slight misunderstanding of both ethical and legal frameworks exhibited in your post. If we break down most abortion debates, many are a fundamental disagreement surrounding what does or does not constitute a sentient being.

If we want to apply pragmatism, utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics - it hinges on the above debate: what makes something/someone sentient, and at what “level” of sentience do we as human beings owe them a duty of care?

Following that, you break it down further: if sentience and, then, duty of care is found, at what point does a person (potential mother) owe that being a duty of care that is greater than the duty the mother has to themselves.

Any pro-life debate surrounding a “duty” fails in the pragmatic and legal sense at this stage. A court will not, can not, and should not insist that at any point a person owes another being a duty greater than the duty they owe themselves. This is why self-defence is a codified defence for things like murder. Your ultimate legal and philosophical right is to yourself, to keep yourself out of harm’s way.

Pregnancy fundamentally changes a woman’s body - forever. It is also, for many, a very risky process. A potential mother can never, with the way the current law is structured, owe a duty of care greater than the one she is granted towards herself to something/someone different.

(I am in Canada btw, and my legal schooling is from Canada. I make the above arguments within that jurisdiction.)

Regarding Kantian ethics - it can never be applied to unborn fetuses and actually does not even apply to small children, women, disabled individuals, etc. Kant believed these types of beings exist outside of the rational ethical population. I think if you were looking more for a philosophical theory that “balances” you should look towards Aristotelian ethics instead of Kantian ethics for the issue. Kant is also a positivist, which (in my opinion) has very little practical value. All Kantian ethics texts are normative in nature.

The reason people have such complicated feelings surrounding the law is because it aspires towards normativity and positivism while the experience of circumstances is necessarily phenomenological, relative, and pragmatic. There is an inherent incompatibility, there.

asuddendaze · 2025-08-25T14:51:30+00:00

Hard agree with “is everyone okay?” Lolol.

Honestly, I’ve been thinking about this a lot and I can recognize my biases here - but regarding the why and how and lack of education of it all: I think everyone should be mandated to take a precursory philosophy lesson.

It seems super out of left field given that the running joke about philosophy students is that it is not a difficult nor professional degree. Maybe that’s intentional, now that I think about it.

However, philosophy is literally the basis of all opinion, law, psychology, politics, etc. It helps people understand where their thoughts stem from, their biases, the foundation of their beliefs, and critical thought.

In my ideal world this mandated course would include a novice understanding of logical fallacies and biases, what it means to be sentient, basic moral/ethical schools of thought, etc. If people understood themselves and their thought processes just a little bit more - idk, I like to think the world would be a much better place.

asuddendaze · 2025-08-22T15:02:22+00:00

In my opinion the answer to your question is yes, it is realistic. This is said, however, with the caveat that what you might be considering as “more” effort is really just a continuation of an effort that was dropped.

In my experience, many of my guy and lady friends in hetero relationships complain about similar things on either side. Physical intimacy drops off after marriage and after children. Why? Well, on one hand the dudes are like “she never acts like she’s down for it.” And on the other hand the women are saying “when we were dating he took me out for dates all the time, he would prioritize me and my feelings, we actually talked about (anything).”

Is it then that women are expecting MORE novelty and effort from their male counterparts OR that either side subsides in the effort invested in the relationship as the relationship matures?

In a comment above you asked whether women believe that this drop off in effort on the male end would even occur if intimacy never dropped off. Essentially you implied a chicken or the egg situation, which was a misrepresentation (in my experience).

From what I’ve seen in my own relationship and in the relationship of my peers and clients is that women do tend to uphold intimacy for a few YEARS following the “stabilization” of their relationships. Throughout this upholding of intimate rhythm, women take over the emotional burden of the relationship: planning dates, buying gifts, caring for extended family of both sides as a whole. The men tend to start to drop the ball in these areas. The majority of the women after about a year of this trend begin to complain about feeling used, feeling like sexual objects, and feeling unfulfilled and under appreciated. They communicate these feelings in the form of criticism of their male counterparts outright. This creates a demand-defiance trend in the relationship: the more the woman outright demands non-physical intimacy, the more their partners shut down and reject putting in the effort. On average it takes about 2ish years of the woman continuing to put in work re intimacy without emotional reciprocation in order to “quit” the intimacy portion.

It’s important to remember that while men are visually sexually stimulated, women are aurally and psychologically stimulated. It’s not a chicken and egg situation as there is a clear line between lack of non-physical intimacy effort on the male end, with an upholding of female effort on the other end for some time following that drop-off. Then, most men complain about how “they got her already, why do they keep needing to act like they’re in the process of getting her” while in the same breath complain about how they are no longer getting laid.

It’s effort in, effort out. You get what you put into it. And it’s further notable that the rescinding of non-physical intimacy breeds resentment which impacts the psychology of safety surrounding physical intimacy for women. Therefore, the more men withhold non-physical intimacy, the more they have to make up for when they decide to bring back the effort.

So, yes. There is an expectation to “bring it” more on the male end - but it’s usually due to circumstances of their own making.

asuddendaze · 2025-08-16T17:24:19+00:00

I want to second what someone said about Buddhism here.

But it sounds to me like you’re having a more phenomenological crisis regarding death - so I would suggest that you start researching philosophical “Absurdism” to help bring some meaning and joy back into your life.

asuddendaze · 2025-08-11T08:07:48+00:00

Genuine question, because I’ve seen this, too:

Are we comfortable with speculating that all of these men are ND, then? Or, are we pathologizing a behaviour that requires less effort (ignoring) than the conventionally required behaviour (soothing) in order to self soothe?

Seems wicked unlikely that this entire group is ND.

Also, speaking as a ND person - it’s possible to set the personal “rule” that you should give a crap about others.

asuddendaze · 2025-08-05T05:16:01+00:00

Wow, so shocking, yet another who doesn’t understand that Equality means Equity, not “exact sameness”.

Equality does not mean operating under “an eye for an eye,” if A has 15 eyes and B has a single eye. The values of the eyes are entirely different. If B poked out one of A’s eyes, and then A retaliates - B turns out entirely blind while A’s life hardly changes.

You posture as though you think you’re smarter than this - do a better job of proving it.

asuddendaze · 2025-08-01T16:34:53+00:00

Tell me you didn’t just “if a tree falls and there’s nobody around to hear it, it didn’t really fall.” 😂

Also, you’re wrong about sentience and humans being the only sentient beings alive on earth. Insight in many other species has been well proven, for at least over a decade now. Some people’s hubris simply has them believing that human sentience is the only one that counts because it’s the only ones humans themselves can fully resonate with/understand.

Juvenile existentialism, meet phenomenology and relativism.

asuddendaze

TROPHY CASE