Whether she realizes it or not, refusing to engage or talk about it, except in her own time frame- is not a good sign for a healthy relationship,

Haaaaaaaaaard disagree. People need time to process and self regulate before engaging with things like this. The silent treatment isn't the right play, and neither is stewing in it, not trying to reach an emotionally grounded state, and reapproacing the situation.

A much more healthy response, from either individual, would be to set a timeframe for when they can reengage. Either him saying "clearly you don't want to discuss this now. That's okay. How about the morning?" or her saying the same, essentially. It's healthy to admit that you just do not have the emotional capacity to have a conversation respectfully.

There's a pretty good chance the questions asked were only asked because she was still very emotionally high. The fact that it occurred in the middle of the night, suddenly, after OP being asleep, says that she has probably not been regulating. Not good times to be having emotional discourse. Every person has said weird, gross, or straight up untrue things when they're emotionally charged. Stuff you don't believe or wouldn't act on, and never would have said in a normal state.

None of this is to excuse any of the actions or words said. She clearly has some emotional issues, and needs actual, professional help. I'm just picking at the "refusing to talk" bit. There are healthy ways to refuse to talk, and many benefits to not just butting heads immediately.

It's true enough advice, though. She has an emotional problem, not a rational one. She probably knows full well that her response isn't rational, but she still feels the feelings she has. Explaining the rationale and logic she seems to be missing is only going to make her more upset. Versus, instead, figuring out what her actual problem is. Maybe it's a long standing issue, having texts ignored. Maybe she has some past trauma, or something specific happened that day that just set them off.

It's not always about being right or wrong. Her response, we all agree, was a wrong response. It's one that I'd be considering the relationship for. But it's also one to learn from, for all parties. Someone having a problem stemming from an emotion often isn't going to be made better by logicing the situation into submission.

Ok now THAT'S a weird one to censor.

You're asking people to describe a qualic phenomenon. This thing, the feeling of being trans, isn't really something someone can describe to someone who hasn't experienced it.

Ultimately, what you're describing to me is less trans, and more along the lines of how I am. I'm a cisgender male, but I'm also very feminine in certain areas. I paint my nails, I enjoy dancing, too, and I play female characters in games where I can make the character. I enjoy teaching, and nurturing. I have no desire to change my gender, or to conform any more strictly to one set of gender norms or the other.

So often, you'll hear trans people say they always knew. I think that's both the case, and a bit off. My guess is that they've always had a feeling SOMETHING was amiss, but weren't really able to nail down the exact feeling until, well... They started considering transitioning.

I would love to read the whole study you're referring to with the theory of mind. That sounds fascinating.

Came here just to note this. So close!

Oh, man. My mother had cats who would just attack tp or paper towels. We had them both hanging the 'correct' way, got tired of it and flipped em. Now, though, I stick to dogs lol

The proper way to hang it, if you have cats, is the other way so they don't bat it all off if the get access. This is why I do not have cats.

I dunno, have you seen the drivers out there? Pretty sure some of them are watching movies.

Sure, you don't need to stress eat while you're bored. But eating is already a thing you do, it makes you feel good, and it's there.

Imagine if you actually had to smoke a cigarette 3 times a day. The smoke is a requirement for your body. It makes you feel good, but you can go to excess and it's bad for you. This is MUCH closer to food.

You HAVE to eat. You eat daily. Not doing so is a disorder. So you can't just not eat, you have to develop a healthy relationship with food. With this thing that tastes good, makes you feel good, and you have to do anyway. Well, that's okay. We can have a healthy relationship with it!

Oh no. You're sad. Something bad happened. You need something to help you out. Well, how about some food? It's usually pretty enjoyable. You eat every day anyway, so like... It's not a HUGE deal, surely, and you're fuckin SAD man. Fuck it, whole pizza it is! Let's get happy!

Rinse and repeat, because life is inevitably a big series of bad things (and good, but we're not focusing on those) happening. Now your emotional coping is tied to food. It's not as addictive as nicotine, but it is a requirement for life. It's a lot harder to change THAT than it is to just say "don't smoke." It's like going to a smoker and saying "smoke, but only 3 times a day."

We also extend some sympathy to the cigarette smoker, to the self harmer. Quitting smoking is HARD. It takes a ton of effort, nicotine is literally addictive. Self harm is indicative of any of a number of mental and emotional issues. Those are a nightmare to address

But at the end of the day, they should just grow up and do it, right? Just don't smoke. Just don't cut yourself. Just don't eat to excess. Simple.

Never mind the literal good deserts some people find themselves in. The decades of misinformation from lobbying groups. The fact that everyone has their own one weird trick,so you don't know who to believe. The fact that the cheapest food is often the least nutritious. The fact that, increasingly, people have to work more hours to get by, leaving less time for things like cooking a proper meal.

There are real societal factors that play into the obesity epidemic. We didn't get where we are because everyone was collectively like "let's just get fat, yeah?" - we were all brought to this point by the influences of the world around us. Personal responsibility is all well and good, but it's also not the whole game.

Why does it necessarily have to be a celebration? Are quiet hours at shopping centers celebrating sensory disorders?

It's not about celebrating, even if some people will use it as such. It's about allowing different people the comfort to experience a thing that most of our society takes for granted.

I've never met a fat person who doesn't want to change their lifestyle. Sure, there are a few who claim that, but in my experience, that's a defense mechanism from all of the people who look down on them daily. Something like this is only a good thing, offering encouragement at no significant cost.

Half of cooking is combining random ingredients you think will work. Took the idea of rice pudding and wanted some cinnamon with it. Think between cinnamon toast and rice pudding.

Exactly. I was going for rice pudding but cinnamon, and was low on ingredients. It's actually pretty delicious if you don't fuck up the spices hahah

Counterpoint, no matter the accessibility options included, there's always going to be a disability that isn't compatible. The only game that everyone can play is "sitting alone in your room" and some people even struggle with that. There's always going to be some level of ability required. As much as that sucks, that some people just won't be able to experience a thing, it sucks more to have no one experience it for fear of excluding those who can't.

I've never used cinnamon on my potatoes, but I add it to some savory dishes like chill. The key is, cinnamon cuts through, so you need veeeeeeeery little.

Maaaaaaaaaan, I was high af making some rice. Wanted to add some butter, sugar, and cinnamon. I got the first two, but unfortunately got cumin instead of cinnamon. Even high I couldn't finish it.

I'm not an expert on any of this. Just a caveat, I'm sure anything I propose will have it's share of flaws.

State law enforcement (men armed with guns apprehending private citizens) should be the LAST step. For in-the-moment intervention, cops are already useless - unless they happen to be on site already, whatever violence happen, will happen before they get there. There's no good answer to stopping a determined violent individual, short of empowering people to defend themselves and others around them.

I think there's always going to be some level of violent crime. Some people simply don't function the same way. For these people, we clearly need some kind of active response force. It's use should be limited, based on hard fact and actual threat to civilian life. We also clearly need some kind of (humane) separation for people who cannot or will not rehabilitate, people who cannot be reintegrated into our society. These are two of the only acceptable uses of state violence, in my opinion.

I don't know the exact way it would look, but I'd like to see a move towards communities looking after themselves and those around them, in all aspects, and this includes safety and security.

Unfortunately, for property crimes, the only way to actually enforce property ownership is through violence, either direct threat of violence (break my shit and I'll end you), or state violence (break my shit and the state will send armed men to apprehend you unless you reimburse me). We have to determine what level of property security versus violence we seem acceptable. I tend to fall a bit more extreme towards violence not being okay to protect property - I don't think there's a single piece of property worth killing or maiming an individual over. Thus, if the only way to protect property is this level of violence, I believe it is wrong to intervene. I don't believe it is right for the individual to intervene, and I don't believe it is right for the state to intervene. The sad truth is that most of what the police force does now is enforce these types of crimes.

Holy shit I haven't thought about frybread in like, a decade and now you made me think about it. How dare you.

I didn't say that the policing model goes away, or that we should have secret police a LA the USSR.

The words I said were: your country's economic model informs what laws you hold valuable.

This is easily true. We currently have the system in place of "get more, more good." An abundance of our laws, some of the ones we hold most dear, adhere to that. Protecting property is one thing that our legal system and police force does well.

Contrast to a more equality based economic model. If our society values raising people who are down up, sometimes at a mild cost to someone who's already doing well, then our laws change. Suddenly we see a value shift in our legal system from get more/protect what we have, to let's help the downtrodden a bit.

Second, I said that this all informs what policing you have.

Again, this pretty naturally follows from the previous point. Police exist to uphold the laws, at least ostensibly. Their interfacing with society depends on what society has said we hold valuable enough to codify into law. This is where you might get such laws as rent control, where we have determined it's valuable to set limits to the year over year increase someone has to pay for their dwelling, at the slight cost of some profit to the owner.

All of these things are connected. Correct, socialism isn't a method of policing, but our method of policing is born of what our society holds valuable. It's all connected.