Ten pounds of personality in a five-pound bag
TikTok video by Abraham Piper:
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8HCyJqo/
A past decision can be canceled by a present decision without either decision being the wrong one.
Or, like I tell people all the time: just because a relationship has ended doesn’t mean it has failed.
A dichotomy I’ve noticed a ton over the years is the different ways people handle their phones at night (or when they sleep).
Some people keep their notifications turned on, and expect their friends not to send them text messages (the way, in the olden days, we didn’t call on the POTS phone after 9 pm because it was inconsiderate).
Other people set their phones on silent or Do Not Disturb at night, and simply check their messages in the morning.
I’m a part of Camp 2. I generally lose touch with Camp 1, because I’m never sure if it’s okay to text them or not.
In general, I treat texting as asynchronous. If something is urgent, I make a phone call (or other workaround if the person does not use the phone).
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect someone to wake up to text message notifications. That level of sleep interruption is unhealthy (not to mention literally torture). Similarly, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect someone to *not* send a text message when the thought strikes them; texting as a medium is very different from speaking (in person or on the phone). Again, it’s wholly asynchronous.
I’m aware that this probably makes me a Very Geriatric Millennial or whatever. Now get off my lawn.
In any case: like most Differences, this is something that folks hold in a very deep-seated way, where you’re unlikely to change the other person’s mind; all you can do is acknowledge the way they feel, and do your best to get along. Which is really disappointing, I know.
An Internet friend is trying to run a D&D game in her town, but she’s found that one of her players has (what I consider to be) frankly absurd expectations for the game.
Stuff like “what do you mean, the dragon attacked me when I threw a rock at it?” Ma’am, you cannot run around just Pippin Tooking all over the place and expect there to not be consequences! You’re lucky that wasn’t a Balrog! Sorry, I mean legally distinct Balor.
Anyway. My friend was distraught and thought, maybe she did something wrong? Now. I know I’m only getting one side of the story here, and that naturally I’m going to side with my friend. But here’s the deal: It doesn’t actually MATTER if my friend is Right or Wrong. She’s allowed to run a game where she expects the players to more or less behave in reasonable ways, not deliberately screw things over for the other players, etc.
If you want to be a PC who acts in antisocial ways, then that’s a conversation you need to have with your DM ahead of time, ideally during Session Zero. And it’s a good idea for DMs to have an Expectations Document, where they lay out what type of game they expect to run.
For me, one of my general expectations is “no PVP” (player versus player). I find it very stressful to have to navigate between in-character conflict. So if someone else really enjoys PVP and wants to play that style of game, that’s okay – they just can’t do it at my table. It’s a compatibility issue. And maybe their desire for PVP will make it hard for them to find a group to game with. Or alternatively, maybe my desire for a PVP-free group will make it hard for me to find players.
But the most important thing to remember is that nobody is obligated to change their playing style to suit someone else’s wishes. Even if that person’s preferred style changes mid-game.
And relationships are the same way. If you want fundamentally different things – even if you changed your mind about what you wanted after being together for a long time – then it’s not just okay, it’s *positive*, to go your separate ways.
Even if that means you spend a while without a partner.
When I was a teenager, I was a total weirdo.
I mean, I still am. But I was then, too. (Apologies to…Mitch Hedberg, I think?)
One year at our big family beach vacation, I announced at dinner that our cantaloupe was just like Achilles.
Everyone stared at me.
Sensing the fact that they did not understand my Galaxy Brain (we did not have memes when I was a teenager, so I am making up for lost time now), I explained.
Earlier in the week, the cantaloupe we had bought was large, but very bland. But the cantaloupe we were eating that night was small and very sweet! So it’s like Achilles, who was offered a long life in obscurity or a short life of glory, and chose the short life of glory.
Short life? Small cantaloupe. Glory? Sweetness.
It made sense to me.
Reading this Reddit thread a little while back got me annoyed.
Someone in the comments (yes, I know, I know) was saying something like “is this (financial protections) really why people get married? What gold diggers!” Or whatever.
And my reaction? Yes, that’s why people get married! The entire point of legal marriage is, in fact, that “piece of paper” that gives you all the rights and privileges and protections and ability to file taxes jointly and whatever. That’s the only reason people get married and file a certificate with the state clerk.
The squishy emotional side of marriage doesn’t require a courthouse at all. You can go up to your favorite house of worship and have a ceremony there, without the legal side of this at all, whenever you want (and if you can convince the celebrant to let you renounce all the legal benefits; some won’t do that). You can have a party with all your friends and family that doesn’t involve the paper at all. Tons of folks do this if they elope and hold a reception later on, or whatever. The important emotional thing isn’t the legal paper; it’s the public promise in front of your friends and family.
The legal side of marriage? Is VERY important. And yes. It’s why people get married.
My response to the above post follows.
I’m a fan of written reviews personally, in part because I am hard of hearing (and don’t process audio data well), and in part because they are just easier to absorb. Like other commenters said, with a written review you can scan the page to find something you’re looking for (using visual clues to aid in your scanning). It’s impossible to do that with audio or video unless those mediums are exhaustively annotated with – you guessed it – writing.
I do enjoy video things from time to time; I love Playing Around Games on TikTok, for example. (double check that name? did i remember it right?) But even a personable and pleasant video host like that still falls prey to the fact that I can only really pay attention, and absorb the audio, if I am in the right headspace to sit down and really exercise my brain towards listening to people talk. (And even then I prefer videos with captions!)
Video, as a medium, really shines when it comes to things like tutorials for playing a game. My gaming group will often watch a how-to video together before we play, just to see all the pieces and how they move/fit together/whatever. But if I’m reading a review/hearing someone talk *about* the game? Written, with optional photos of the game board, please.
Thank you for reading this far!
Inspired by this Reddit post, I want to state a Short Opinion: Romantic Love is, and should be, conditional.
The only love that should be unconditional is that of a parent for their minor child.
In any other relationship – be it romantic, platonic, or otherwise – it is not only appropriate, but necessary, to place conditions on your love/your presence in that relationship.
You don’t become cooler with age, but you do care progressively less about being cool, which is the only true way of being cool. This is called the Geezer’s Paradox.
Found via this Mastodon link: https://mastodon.sdf.org/@obster/111142670514548111
Not me. I don’t want to remarry! But the title of this post is from a famous essay from back in the 70s about how much domestic and emotional labor the role of “wife” provides, and how even after women* entered the workforce en masse in the 70s, all of that labor still had to be performed by…the wife half of any heterosexual couple.
TikTokker Laura Danger reads the text
Labour, by Paris Paloma:
That’s it, that’s the post. Negative amortization should be illegal.
If an account is in a position (like with student loan deferments or forbearance or what have you) where someone needs to make a lowered payment, and is approved for that lowered payment, then the interest accrual should be paused for that period.
I wonder if any bills are being proposed that do this?
