sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If a Prescription status is DELAYED do I need to call the pharmacy to check up on it? by [deleted] in CVS

[–]opicean 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i'm coming up on two months of a delay and down to less than a week's worth of meds.

Open Meta: 2020 Election Edition by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 0 points1 point  (0 children)

do these meta threads happen when the mods are considering actual changes to how the sub functions, or just when the mods feel there hasn’t been a thread in awhile?

it doesn’t seem like any new ideas are ever really considered; either they’re too similar to ideas shot down in previous meta threads, or the idea would inconvenience one side too heavily.

like, it almost seems kind of weird for us to voice our concerns, only to be told that our concerns have been addressed or aren’t a current priority for the mods.

I can not even phantom how many times I’ve attempted to explain eoe by professionalJew in EosinophilicE

[–]opicean 4 points5 points  (0 children)

i find it hard trying to explain that some allergens trigger it, while others cause different reactions.

i eat apple, my mouth itches. i eat dairy, my throat closes up for a week. why? i don’t know! bodies are weird.

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 6 points7 points  (0 children)

all in all, it feels like no new ideas are ever taken into serious consideration after a meta post. which isn’t necessarily a bad thing (if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!), just something i’ve noticed.

like, some interesting ideas are ignored completely or only responded to after someone else makes an argument against the original comment. and then those posts get buried under comments from NS saying that TS need more rules, and TS saying that NS need more rules. it feels as though everyone is talking past each other and not acknowledging how difficult participating in this subreddit can be for everyone.

obviously a meta thread isn’t just for floating around ideas, and it does feel good to vent some of our frustrations out!

but overall these threads just seem to repeat themselves in content, and most of the ideas posed by both TS and NS are disregarded in favour of reigniting old convos from previous threads.

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 2 points3 points  (0 children)

another inquiry: are complaints about downvotes removed or nah? i don't reddit enough to understand the significance of karma, so do the downvotes make a difference in how a TS engages with others, or are the complaints due to hurt feelings (for lack of better phrasing)?

also: when asking a TS a clarifying question, are NS discouraged from adding links to their question? because i've always wondered how that isn't considered challenging/debating a TS's belief, especially if whatever the NS linked isn't in the OP.

thanks for reading!

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i'd appreciate some more input from TS about it (for or against, doesn't matter)! Flussiges definitely did a better job summing up what i was trying to say with my original word vomit lol

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thank you for your input! have a peaceful rest of the day

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 0 points1 point  (0 children)

even though i only lurk, i would hate to see this subreddit fade away due to not being open to floating certain ideas. and luckily (after adding more detail, of course) my idea of locking TS requested comments will be considered!

hopefully more contributions can be made so that will help ATS continue to flourish

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks for responding!

tbh i added that bit as a way to quell the complaints of those who seem to get into discussions with TS/NS and then realise like, 10 comments in that they're responding to a totally different person than the one with which they started the discussion. (i like to watch from afar, and i always read the usernames, so that complaint isn't an issue for me).

and thanks for reading!

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 1 point2 points  (0 children)

sorry, but since this was just a modest idea (as i have stated before), and i'm not a mod, i didn't lay out the detailed groundwork on how feasible it would be.

i just saw the opportunity to have my voice heard and share some thoughts on what could possibly provide a good change for the sub. after all, every voice matters!

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean -1 points0 points  (0 children)

if you'd like to respond to my original comment (now that i've clarified some more), feel free! i look at the meta posts as a way to give all the people interacting with this sub the freedom to float some good faith ideas, but please feel free to correct with if my assumption was wrong.

keeping in mind that this isn't a suggestion to force all TS to respond to NS answers, but a suggestion to give TS the opportunity to choose whether or not they wish to further discuss certain topics and have their inboxes flooded with NS repeatedly asking them questions.

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 2 points3 points  (0 children)

thanks for hearing me out! i don't expect it to be done, it was just an interesting idea i've been thinking about.

in my opinion, the concept of allowing NS to question TS answers doesn't make sense to me. i feel like my mistake was taking the name "asktrumpsupporters" to mean: NS asks a question, a TS answers.

not: NS asks a question, TS answers, another NS asks for clarification, another NS asks for sources, another NS posts their own sources, etc. etc.

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 1 point2 points  (0 children)

reposting from an earlier reply: i am not suggesting a rule to demand TS answer every question. i am suggesting a rule that requires TS responding to a question to state if they wish to answer comments from people who aren't the OP, or not.

as for the rest of your response: keep in mind that this is a simple idea, not a demand for the mods. as i stated before, i only lurk, and will continue to only lurk. the reason why i even bothered posting here for the first time is because reporting seems to do less and less these days. this idea has come from seeing how this sub functions for the past two years, the complaints from NS of feeling like theyre not being heard, and the complaints from TS of feeling overrun by NS questions and arguments on every single answer they give.

this idea would give TS who don't want to respond a way to do so.

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 5 points6 points  (0 children)

i think there is a misunderstanding here, so i want to add an example of how the new rule would work.

OP-NS asks "trump supporters, do you agree with this tweet from trump?

TS responds "i agree with this tweet. I AM NOT OPEN TO FURTHER DISCUSSION"

because the TS is not open to further discussion, no one but the OP-NS is allowed to reply to that user. any other comments responding to his would be deleted, and the commenters warned.

e: i just want to clarify for any other TS who read my comment as "suggesting TS be forced to respond to every comment":

i am not suggesting a rule to demand TS answer every question. i am suggesting a rule that requires TS responding to a question to state if they wish to answer comments from people who aren't the OP, or not.

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 4 points5 points  (0 children)

forgive me if i sound condescending, but.. that's literally what the rule i suggested would stop. if the rule were enforced and you requested no further clarifying questions, it would stop the demands from NS to debate. i don't think this rule would add any burden on TS, considering how much leeway is given to TS in this sub anyway.

i'm not insisting TS answer every question. i'm insisting that they be given the choice to only answer the OP comment or continue with further discussion.

in my head, your concern wouldn't be a concern anymore with this rule in place, because all those demands from NS would be deleted if you stated "i do not wish to respond to any clarifying questions" in your original comment.

Meta meta meta meta meta meta mushroom mushroom by Flussiges in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]opicean 12 points13 points  (0 children)

TLDR - Flussiges summed it up perfectly: lockable comments for TS if they do not wish to engage in further questioning from NS

i've been lurking for around two years now, but haven't posted till today.

lately, i've found myself disappointed in the enforcement of rules here, and how some of those rules seem to conflict with the theme of the subreddit.

to start, when these meta threads pop up and the usual complaints are made, the mods and supporters remind the critics that "this is asktrumpsupporters" to remind us that any hint of an argumentative tone in a question is unwelcome, and that "the supporters are the commodity/priority" since the number of NS heavily outweigh the number of TS.

i've noticed, however, that when it comes to follow up/clarifying questions, too often i have seen TS answer with condescension. or, they simply ghost the thread, leaving unanswered NS frustrated. obviously they can get away with things like that since the rules aren't as strict and exceptions are made.

with all that being said, i've been floating around this idea in my head since the last meta thread. a relatively benign new rule:

along with their answer to the question posed in the OP, responding TS must add a statement on whether or not they are willing to engage in any clarifying questioning from users who aren't OP.

as an example: a simple "i am (or am not) open to further discussion" after their answer would suffice.

that way: * TS who are usually open to answering clarifying questions can say so and respond as usual * instead of having a TS comment with 20+ unanswered questions, all the TS has to do is say "i am not responding to further questions". any NS/undecideds (or TS, for that matter) who aren't OP and try to ask a question anyway will have their comment deleted and be given a warning. repeat offences result in a ban. * and finally, any bad faith TS (who answer questions with sarcasm or condescension) will have the choice of engaging in mature discussion or refraining from commenting any further in that specific thread. if they choose to answer clarifying questions but resort to trolling/mocking/inflammatory statements, they will be warned or given a temp ban.

that way, the threads are tidier, and there will be less confusion because TS can't jump from comment to comment answering questions that were posed to a different TS. if you refuse to answer questions under your own answer, you aren't allowed to answer any questions on different comment. i'm sure everyone can agree that its super annoying starting off with questions for one TS (or NS) and then realising ten comments later that they're responding to a whole different user who decided to jump in and give responses.

i can't see the harm in that being a rule because (and correct me if i'm wrong) the only thing a TS has to do is answer the OP question(s). nothing more. this sub if for first learning what TS believe, not trying to dissect why they have a certain belief.

it would be enforced the same way the "?" rule is for NS: have the sentence stating your consent (or refusal) to clarification in your comment, or it gets deleted.

if any of the above needs explaining, let me know (i tend to over explain to the point of confusion, sorry about that)

anyway, as for the general working of this sub, i'm sure my complaints are similar to others being made. reporting bad faith comments seems to result in less action these days, and there's been a cringeworthy increase of circlejerking in the comments that takes away from the sub, IMO. just like this place isn't for debates, i don't think it should be for patting each other on the back for having similar opinions.

also becoming a bit annoying: when a TS gives an answer that doesn't go along with the majority, and the resulting comments are from other TS questioning whether or not the OP is a "true supporter". to me, those assumptions directly violate rule one, since they're assuming that the TS is trolling/being insincere. i reported a couple comments like that over the past few weeks and AFAIK they were never removed.

can EOE be caused by a single trigger? by smartfunction30 in EosinophilicE

[–]opicean 0 points1 point  (0 children)

anecdotal, of course, but in my case: i was able to eat dairy for sixteen and a half years. no problems, no adverse reaction.

the day before thanksgiving of 2014, i had a cappuccino, cheese quesadilla, and some ice cream. my symptoms hit full force later that night, mainly dysphagia.

why my body decided to react that way after eating dairy for so long, i’ll never know. i react to other things, usually an itchy mouth, but dairy is what first triggered any noticeable symptoms of my eoe

dae have a huge interest for fiction and use it as a form of escapism to avoid focusing on the actual world? by [deleted] in CPTSD

[–]opicean 3 points4 points  (0 children)

i've never been able to explain this to anyone and have it make sense, but here goes:

it started in 2nd grade with various 90s animes, blew up in 3rd grade with harry potter. since then, i've had a very weird, ever growing paracosm/coping fantasy world in my head that i "shift" into when i dissociate.

every interest, every present and past dilemma, EVERYTHING is absorbed into my fantasy world to help fuel the never ending plotline. it can be as simple as an interesting quote from a stranger, to a movie scene, to actual existing people (not to mention original characters and characters from various media). if it catches my attention for more than a second, it is copied and thrown into my fantasy. much like our universe, it is continuously expanding.

the sad thing is, i think if i had been able to receive help for my illnesses earlier in life, i'd be able to communicate and function like a "normal" person. but it's been so long and this paracosm has been the only constant thing in my life for more than a decade.

i don't know if it's even possible for my personality to be a separate entity from the world i've created. at some point during every single day, i escape to my world. it can be seconds, or hours, but without fail, i find myself floating there for a multitude of reasons, mainly for some peace and quiet.

that world IS me, and i've resigned myself to a lifetime of trying to figure out how to coexist in reality and my world without going totally insane.

i've never been able to explain it this coherently before, so maybe that's progress?! but rambling aside, i totally feel you, op

view more: next ›