It is a fun test that shows how little I know about makeup and classical literature. I have a couple problems with it though. A few words appear to have spelling mistakes (
Some questions have a lot ambiguity to them. Like, one could use
With that in mind, I can't take the test super seriously, but at least the categories are interesting, and legitimately span a wide array of topics.
Bombadil
2d ago
At this point, my main issue is with how this is enforced. A world without children on the internet would be a better one. But how do you ensure children don't access the internet without doing away with any semblance of online privacy?
Bombadil
2d ago
I would be interested in learning more about the casual dating market in china. With marriage being gated behind prohibitive sums of money, I would expect people to just not get married. Human desires being what they are though, people are going to find some way to romance and sex. So I would think that situationships, casual flings, maybe lying about seeing someone on the side, would be common practices. The obvious loophole in the social norms. We can tell people that we are dating to figure out if we are a good match, then break up once we realize it would be better to see someone else.
I think in general this hints at a certain weakness of of how China is ruled. It seems like the Chinese government has been attempting to force behavior change through authoritarian means, but with every law they create, some unforeseen side effect pops up. The one-child policy resulted in a huge gender imbalance. Turning the country capitalist made it wealthy, but increased the people's financial anxieties to the point where they are using marriage as a means of making money. Blackmailing people into demanding less money for marriage seemingly just has not worked.
From my point of view, these problems appear to have been caused by government overreach. Perhaps the solution then, is to just let it play out, regulate less, accept life will suck for the next generation, but assume the problem will eventually resolve itself with time.
Bombadil
3d ago
No. Both have agency. And the bystanders are correct to blame both the instigator and the culprit.
Bombadil
3d ago
You are. You provoked a psycho (threatened his life, really) who in turn became hyper aggressive. The psycho is also responsible, but you absolutely carry part of the blame. This was a predictable result of your actions, and you did nothing to mitigate the harm you knew (or should have known) would occur.
Bombadil
4d ago
Who are the people that you believe supported the lockdowns, knowing that they were lying about the effects they would have? I have a hard time identifying any group that benefited from this, other than the hospitals which were under less pressure than would have otherwise been the case;
The point of the lockdowns was to lessen the load on the hospitals so they would not be overloaded and forced to triage. A very real possibility at the time, given just how fast the disease was spreading and the amount of people expressing debilitating or life threatening symptoms. Instead of everyone falling ill during the same short timespan, the course of the pandemic was spread out over a longer period, allowing time to adapt and treat serious cases as they came in. Incidentally, this also bought time to develop a vaccine, resulting in less people becoming sick than would have otherwise been expected.
I will grant you that the lockdowns did not directly save lives compared to risking infections. Covid is not the bubonic plaque that so many make it out to be. To many, it was in fact no worse than the flu. But the effect of overloaded hospitals had the potential to be immense. Tons of people would have been unable to work as important operations were postponed. Healthcare workers would have been worn out and more likely to become sick themselves.
Further, you have to factor in the fact that no modern society is willing to turn the sick or injured away from hospitals. Modern morals dictate that if there is a path to treat everyone, then we must follow it. Even if it results in lowered quality of life for others.
You can look back now and make a reasonable argument that the lockdowns were a mistake. But at the time, I don't see how the politicians could have really done anything different. They are accountable to the public if nothing else, and most people were watching the situation pretty closely. The numbers of infected were constantly going up, breaking news showed bodies being transported through the streets, and anyone with a connection to healthcare (whether it be as doctor or patient) could see the situation slowly spiraling out of control. The public demanded action. History tells us that the main way to stop infection is to isolate the sick. So everyone had the same question burning on their lips: "If a lockdown can slow this down, then why are we not doing it?"
Without a compelling narrative, your statistics are powerless against such sentiments. And as I outlined above, there were legitimate arguments here. In retrospect, they may not have been sufficient, and we can hope that we will make better decisions in the future. I personally hope for hospitals that have the resources to handle sudden influxes in patients without resorting to triage. But in the end, our leaders were under pressure to act rapidly, and this was the best answer they could come up with at the time.
Bombadil
5d ago
The issue with Ukraine is that Russia would not accept anything short of unconditional surrender. So there was really nothing to discuss. Even now, Russia continues to demand areas they are not currently in control of. This would also not mean peace. The Russians will only settle for an armastice that would give them time to rebuild their military whilst demanding that no security guarantees be placed on the Ukranian side. If the Ukranians accepted this kind of "peace", most likely Russia would just attack again in a few years anyway, potentially with Ukraine being weakened and Russia much stronger. By then, the Ukranians might not fare as well as they currently are.
The Ukranians are in a difficult position: Unconditional surrender or keep fighting. Currently they seem to believe that freedom is worth the deaths. Surely, an American should understand this concept.
Assuming that being non-cis is an inborn trait, it could also be that being non-cis makes you more likely to be sexually assaulted at some point.
More options
Context Copy link