Nice one, what you did there was remove the idea of death from a future abstraction that could happen at any second and moved it into the present moment which made you aware of the lack of imminent present danger, calming your anxiety.

It’s kind of a rough and ready but, respectable go at unguided Zen. Mindfulness is just the parts of Zen that are backed by imperial evidence, repackaged for a western audience.

We don’t have the right word for it in English. It’s not a religion and it’s not really a philosophy either, in the way we mean it here. It’s not a modle to understand the world or a moral framework to be put to the test etc. It’s by far the closest word though.

It’s kind of a way of trying to experience the life, be more present and more spontaneous. The Spiritual stuff isn’t meant to be taken even slightly literally but, as representations of things.

I think you might find even more peace adding in some of that.

Say goodbye to the old school, ergh, boring - I hate school!

Say HELLO to the patriot Mcschool of dreams, brought to you in association with Coca-Cola - to ensure your patriot Mcschool dreams have Real magic - providing children with the very best school-like experience and for prices lower than you’d expect.

There’s only one superpower now.

I mean, you might as well call it the Walmart expansion model

Yup, I took a large venti in your bathroom

Youd be hard pushed to find many who weren’t

They know how much control they can assert of the population through controlling social media. They’re not about to allow anyone else to use that, if they can help it. Also, it’ll dilute their messaging, even if it wasn’t as problematic as something like tiktok.

It makes sense the second you stop presuming any good faith.

Haha nice, I had something similar to this. I’m an accountant/auditor who has ADHD and doing that undiagnosed was a special kind of hell. I was lucky enough to work in a very reputable firm too and the good ones, when you complete your work, will carry out a formal, two-stage review process. They’ll write out, on a separate sheet all the errors you made and you have to reply with how you fixed them. First by my line manager or department head and then by the partner who’s client it was.

Essentially, I had to have multiple teams of professional auditors telling me, in explicit detail and fully evidenced, that I had a problem with errors of inattention for years before I finally realised that I might have a problem with errors or inattention.

Luckily, I respond particularly well to the medication and things are much better now.

“Wait a minute, are you trying to tell me that the person who’s been going robbin people while wearing a hood is also called Robin Hood and that a real name of a real person and not just British people taking piss?”

*Click clack

You’ve been very naughty this year haven’t you, Brian?

Never before, in human history, has such ruthlessness been so wholesome.

deleted by creator

Its not whataboutism. Its trying to help you see something youre clearly missing. Its applying the same logic somewhere else, to see if it still works. Its literally how you explain fallacies.

Its not an all lives matter response either. Instead its you attempting to reject intersectionality, in the name of feminism, without a hint of irony or self awareness. Luckily for you, no one else seems to have read theory post the 1980s either.

“Men are trash” being acceptable for all women implies that every man ever has always suffered less power imbalances than every woman ever. For example, it would mean that black male slaves in the 1800s would have to of suffered less at the hand of power imbalances than Queens of the United Kingdom, for your “power imbalance makes sexism ok” argument to hold any weight. Its just a safespace for sexism, provided it’s only directed one way.

Lol no, intersectionality isn’t a false equivalence, as you’re attempting to paint. It’s the rejection of upper class white women, for whom all the men in their lives were all powerful, declaring that all men are always in a higher position of power than all women because that’s the only thing they ever saw (bougouise feminism).

Turns out, for all their talk of equality, people like yourself just want to be at the top of a new hierarchy, exacting revenge.

You literally tried to refute intersectionality with “thats like saying all lives matter.”

But I didn’t manufacture that and neither did you. It also, intentionally, ignores every single other intersection a white person could have.

Don’t worry, the sentiment invalidates itself. That kind of backwards bougouise feminism died in the 80s and should’ve stayed that way.

Again, you don’t understand what a false equivalence fallacy is. So, you should really stop attempting to use it because doing so is make you look like a fool.

Whatabouting and false equivalences aren’t the same thing. I feel like I’m witnessing the death of irony here.

No, something wrong is still wrong, even if you feel bad about historical injustices. The power imbalance does not change this and also ignores every other intersection a white person could have.

You even drew a false equivalence the BLM which is the only actual false equivalence on this chain.

See the wiki pages of the fallacies you clearly don’t understand.

God damn bougouise feminists.

No, it’s not an equivalence argument. I didn’t say they were equally wrong or the same thing. Also, nether power dynamics nor oppression make those things right.

You’re telling me that you see no problem with black people saying the same about all white people then?

My point is that is that both are wrong, not that they are or are not both equally wrong. So, would you mind explaining where the equivalence is please?

I mean, I know its more of a case that some people don’t like that both of those things are wrong to do but I’m gonna need a little more than that and a misunderstanding of an informal fallacy, sorry.

The easiest way to see if it’s OK is to swap out “men” with any other protected characteristic. If, having done that it suddenly becomes problematic, it was always so and they should’ve known better.

I think youre right not to engage them though. For all their talk of equality, anyone who talks like that just wants to be at the top of a new hierarchy. Remove or subjugate the men and most women (who haven’t decolonisated their minds) will just replicate the same power structures, adopting the position of patriarch without a hint of self awareness. The way forward is to help other men see the pain caused to them by the patriarchy, as its only then that we can see the pain we cause through the patriarchy, due to the rituals of disregard and empathy killing we go through as boys.

I’ll finish by saying the same thing I said to my dad, shortly after he lost his job" "yes dad, of course I’ve heard of the phrase ‘sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.’ However, you can’t always do that, especially when you’re meant to be firefighter, you doughnut.

You feel better now?

The real extensions were the ones we shared in the comments section