MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
One thing I’ve always appreciated about Asian dramas in general is that they aren’t afraid to be themselves and tell a story without feeling the need to insert ironic humor or social or political fashions. It’s a story, and the needs of the story rule everything else going on. Thus the heroes can be really heroic, the love interests can be love interests, and so on. Western media has a harder time doing this because they have to insert corny ironic humor in the movie so it doesn’t seem super serious. They have to make sure the women in the show are badasses, feminist and not too feminine. Men cannot be too masculine, too competent, or if they happen to start that way, they must “learn their lesson” by the start of the third act.
Add in the insular world of movies and TV in which everyone has the same background, the same training, and are expected to follow “Save The Cat” to the letter, and I think it’s just a mess. Nobody can create an honest account of redneck masculinity because nobody in Hollywood comes from that background. If you’re going to film school and have the funds in hand to be effectively unemployed for 3-5 years, you’re not from anything like a working class background and more than likely have never had a ten minute conversation with someone from a working class background. It’s PMC class second sons all around and all they can do is ape media portrayals of things they’re generations away from first hand knowledge of. Here Be There Dragons.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
It’s really quite the shame from my perspective. It’s actually important to know whether what public figures say is true or not. Except when these “fact checks” became mere political propaganda, it makes it that much harder to get people to believe in actual facts and actually look into whether or not a given statement is true. And it can be dangerous especially in situations where the general public has no ability to actually fact check on its own. If we have a natural disaster and need to get good information out quickly, having people actually trust that their news sources are trustworthy and accurate and do what needs to be done becomes impossible when people are used to understanding “facts” as “those things that we want you to believe whether or not they are actually true.”
The press doing this is creating something like a medieval world in which there was no way to study and learn the truth so you were left with terms like Orthodoxy and Heresy. Figuring out whether or not the earth went around the sun might well be difficult. But you absolutely knew whether or not the concept was Heresy.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
11mo ago
I think this is a large part if the issue. Even those who are hired to stop theft in a venue are for all intents and purposes forbidden to do their jobs, often by the fear of lawsuits or other reprisals. This makes criminals much less worried about getting caught, and much more likely to resort to crime as the best option. Even cops are often forced to simply watch until the crime has been done and the criminal has gotten away before being allowed to act. With such policies, those who don’t want to be victims of crime need to basically defy the laws in order to protect themselves and others and frankly their businesses.
Which is where this is going to end up, sooner or later. People fed up with being victimized will take it upon themselves to administer justice, and no matter what the laws actually say, people will be armed. That’s what happens when the law doesn’t protect people for whatever reason. The common people arm themselves and protect themselves.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
11mo ago
My issue with housing first is that essentially the person is a drug addict in many cases and while they’re ostensibly getting help, they’re also very likely to do the kinds of things drug addicted people do— sell anything that isn’t nailed down physically and destroy property. So getting a large scale program like that to be self-sustaining is probably not possible. You can’t simply rent units with the government paying— no landlord of sane mind is going to participate because even if they pay above market (which they won’t, and they’d probably pay below market) it likely still won’t pay for the depreciation of the rest of the units (because the “unhoused” piss in the elevator, make lewd comments and possibly expose themselves to women and children, steal from their neighbors etc.) then afterwards, you basically have to rebuild the unit (likely with no help from the government) replacing all the fixtures and pipes and wiring sold for drugs, cleaning the floors that the unhoused never cleaned and probably used as a restroom, getting rid of the vermin who have taken up residence, repainting and repairing drywall, etc.
Building would probably again be a losers gamble because you have exactly the same problems. You aren’t going to rent the same unit without the rehab costs. Nobody in their right mind would allow those units built anywhere near them because of the crime and drug problems those units bring with them. Since the units would be built far from anywhere that has jobs — because again, no one wants them around because of the drug problems— you have the added difficulty of getting people without cars to jobs and rehab and training centers.
In an ideal world where the American homeless weren’t chronically addicted to drugs, housing first might work. It works on the Finns and Japanese because they are not chronically addicted to hard drugs and tend to have enough education that you could get them a decent job without too much worry. Americans much less so.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
25d ago
So if the cops arrest my neighbor, and I see them gathering outside, I can get between them and my neighbor and not have interfered? As long as the cops haven’t officially declared they’re now on official duty they just aren’t? It like, cool, I can loot a 7-11 and have twenty big guys “protest” outside and keep the cops out. It’s just ridiculous to me to say crowds of people can surround a bunch of cops, prevent them from even starting their official duties, and hide behind the first amendment even if they’re throwing rocks (which is assault).
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1mo ago
The counter factual is Sweden, tge country that didn’t lock down at all. And to my knowledge, they didn’t really do any worse than their near neighbors.
And the reason it’s so hard to get talking about 1.2 million deaths on the radar is just how much the lockdowns cost the rest of us. People thrown into unemployment (and in the USA, it was hard to get unemployment because the systems were overwhelmed) with a small one time “bonus”. Businesses forced out of business because they couldn’t open, but their creditors could still demand payments. Children deprived of important social development because they couldn’t socialize with other kids. Those same kids given zoom classes instead of a real education. People denied the right to socialize, and when one of those 1.2 million people died, they were forced to die alone, with their families huddles around an iPad.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
3mo ago
My issue is that on the left, there’s zero pushback. When trans activists host preschool events in drag at the library, the pushback comes from Republicans, but not liberals. When BLM was burning down parts of major cities, not only were democrats not doing anything to stop it, but were giving bail money and public support to the movement. Right now in the great Tesla burnings, I’ve yet to hear one person on the left say “this has gone too far. We don’t support vandalism, and don’t harass people who own a Tesla.”
The right, to a fairly large degree rein in their radical wing. No GOP member would let a Proud Boy cover a mosque in bacon without condemning it. They don’t pay bail money for riots as a matter of course. If people March with Nazi flags, the right will scream at every opportunity from every available microphone, on every podcast and blog that they don’t support this nonsense.
And I think it’s the arrogance of having almost all of the cathedral on their side. They know they aren’t going to face blowback from the media and they know their districts are mostly safe. They don’t have to worry about their wings because they’re the ones in control.
I do think they want to fix the problem. It’s really hard to find a group of people who insist on doing the exact opposite of what everyone who works with young men is screaming for them to do and not eventually come to the conclusion that the problem is “they just can’t figure out what to do.”
What has worked for pretty much all of human history is a purpose, a sense of responsibility, and feelings of competence. There are ways to do this, it’s not even that hard. Get them out doing useful things, competing in sports or other activities. Give them male only spaces. They’ll be fine. And if you pay attention to what kinds of messages young men gravitate to, it’s messages exactly like that— calls to purpose, to doing hard things and building something worthwhile. They eat up Jordan Peterson, Jocko, and other similar figures.
With the correct direction so obvious, I find it weird to think that all of the phDs worried about young men have absolutely no idea how to make them healthier. I don’t see it, I see people who look at boys as failed girls and men as failed women and goes about trying to turn the young men into women. It’s doesn’t work, but I’m not convinced it was ever supposed to make men more mentally healthy. It seems more about making sure men are in a sense as domesticated as women are by nature— willing to sit down, shut up and do as he’s told.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I mean space launches are extremely expensive and thus probably not in the perview of any company without a billion dollars in capitalization. Angola’s GDP doesn’t actually support that kind of activity.
Going to the broader point, how much waste, fraud, and vanity projects are the taxpayers to fund in an agency to get one semi-interesting project spun off to the private sector? We had a shuttle program for 30 years. We did fuck-all with it. We studied zero gravity’s effects on some plants and animals, we took cool pictures of space. But when it’s all said and done, what the public got was a shuttle program that didn’t even improve the space suits, let alone the shuttle or the launch rockets. We bolted a shuttle that, other than heat shielding was basically a commercial airplane to an ICBM without a warhead. For 30 years. It took Musk maybe ten to create a system in which all parts were recycled for the next launch and capable of landing vertically. He redesigned the 1960s era space suits to meet the needs of people who would spend more than a few hours in them, and had all of this safe enough that celebrities were willing to pay for a ride. If we’d stuck with NASA and the shuttles, we’d still be going down the produce aisle to find new plants to test in zero gravity. I’m sure rutabagas in zero gravity behave very much like every other root vegetable in zero gravity, so I don’t want to spend ten thousand dollars to launch them into space to find out.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
6mo ago
Even if the environment itself weren’t secular, I think it would still happen for the same reason that Pride parades happen. These people want to be seen, they have a need to reclaim the idea that it’s okay to be a loud and proud Christian and to reject the implication that there’s something shameful about having an actual belief in Christ and Christianity. I don’t even think it’s about them not understanding it, it’s about being in the faces of secular culture and saying that we are Christians and we’re not ashamed of it, and we’re not going anywhere.
The reverse memes are everywhere. Christianity is seen as backwards, bigoted, and something that only uneducated rubes take seriously. You’d rarely, if ever, see the religion itself portrayed positively in media that isn’t explicitly Christian. The best you can hope for is that the media ignores religion, but often there’s a hostility to it. The Cathedral hates believing Christians, most likely because they represent a stronghold they don’t have control over. The school system (unless it’s explicitly a Christian school) teaches secular atheism at every opportunity. TV and movies do the same, with a healthy dollop of “look at how stupid Christianity is, they’re hateful bigots, they’re Christian Nationalists, they’re kind of fascist and want to force everyone to live like them.” This doesn’t happen as much to other religions. Muslims are expected to secularize a bit, but nobody will shame a Muslim for being a Muslim. Jews get a complete pass — wearing a yarmulke doesn’t really bother the Cathedral so much. Buddhists get no pushback, in fact if a white person becomes Buddhist, it’s considered a good thing, and anyway meditation is popular as stress relief.
I find myself wanting to be more loud and proud in such an environment. Maybe not on Twitter, but I find myself wanting to buy and wear Christian clothing just to sort of show that I am one and we exist whether or not the rest of you like it. I’ve return to high church Christianity, and I think I’m getting tired of everything not explicitly made by and for Christians being outright hostile towards Christianity. Is such a thing a version of a Deus Vult edit? I don’t know, but I think it’s where a lot of people are right now.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
8mo ago
I think a lot about this and to me a huge, unspoken aspect of the vitriol is how much of daily life is now political. It’s a power game, and increasingly it’s a power game that has no outside. The church I attend is political, the car I drive, my sports teams, my beer, the stores I shop at and the brands I buy. Further, politics is invading issues that used to be private business or family matters, or simply left too personal choice. And because politics is so total, it has a lot of power. And with so much power, getting a seat at the table is worth alienating other people. It’s worth walking out on thanksgiving dinner over politics if it means that someone watching might agree. It’s worth the inconvenience of having to check the boycotts to make sure you don’t accidentally fund someone who believes wrong-think.
If government either weren’t so powerful of didn’t require us to vote I think we’d have a lot less vitriol. A government too weak to do anything isn’t a prize to capture and loot. And as far as not having elections, if we weren’t required to give our legitimacy to the things our government wants to do to us, they’d have no reason to manufacture consent.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
8mo ago
I think this alongside the other types of events (football games for example) are things that are coded for the lower classes, the deplorables, the kinds of people that mainline Democrats sneer at while being really patronizing about their attempts to “help”. Republicans are able to appeal to that base because they don’t sneer. They see “dirty jobs” as noble, they see doing a job that needs doing so you can meet your obligations as noble. They see the note rests and sensibilities of the working class in flyover country as worthy and beautiful. And this phot opportunity highlighted the difference between the two parties. The democrats are run by the PMC who see working class whites as beneath them. They don’t want to feel snobby so they tend to give help to minorities. The republicans are the party of doers and builders.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
16d ago
I just don’t understand why the journalist community is just incapable of self-correction here. The reason right-leaning news is growing is that it at least tries to get the facts right, and is open and honest about what it believes in. People like FOX and Joe Rogan because they’re trying to get things right and when they don’t get it exactly right, you at least know where they’re coming from. CNN pretends to be neutral but skews left and everyone is fairly aware of that.
I mostly go with AP and BBC when I’m trying to assess whether or not something is factual. Rogan is at least trying and has the virtue (increasingly rare in traditional news media) of letting the guests actually speak without interruption even when he clearly disagrees with them. And because of that, listeners at least get a full understanding of what that guest is trying to say. I find the practice of constantly interrupting the guests on a show to be annoying. If a conservative goes on CNN, he rarely gets to speak a complete sentence before getting cut off to make the counterpoint.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
29d ago
I think we see this sort of backwards. People who make their politics, religion, or sexuality the center of their personality generally are not emotionally healthy. TBH, I think we have an ongoing mental health crisis that’s manifesting itself through politics.
There used to be a normal way to do politics when I was a kid in the 1980s and 1990s. Sure people had an interest in politics, but it was nothing like today. For one thing, the thought of breaking a friendship over politics was something that didn’t occur to people. You disagreed, even argued, but you were still friends and still did things together. And furthermore, politics was just one thing among several that a person might be interested in. There would be other things, TV shows, sports, cars, art, music, and hobbies that took up most of people’s time and attention. It was a much healthier way to do politics, and frankly made for better politics. When people tune out, it’s possible for the leadership to stop posturing and campaigning and start governing.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1mo ago
My rather unpopular opinion is that if housing wasn’t an investment most of these problems would solve themselves.
Nobody really wants more housing supply because it means that the one asset most middle class people can aspire to have — a house — at best stagnates in value and at worst declines in value. No politician want to be the person who made housing values fall. They’d have a hard time getting elected dog catcher if they approve enough new development to lower the cost of housing. Heck, people might not be happy if their house doesn’t increase in value. As such you have a problem that pits the owners of homes against the renters who want to own homes. You have to pick one.
The other issue with everyone trying to buy single family houses is that it’s acre for acre about the worst possible way to build housing. Condos are probably better for housing a lot of families in less space, apartments are cheaper but probably better suited for single people. If you want housing, it’s probably better to build for density and put more people in less acreage.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
3mo ago
I’m a bit deeper than that. When someone uses “the science” in a political or social argument, I pretty much assume that the studies are suspect. There are just too many ways to get the results you want: funding the studies yourself, reinterpreting the results to say what you want tge results to be, p-hacking, or doing a one off study that never replicate but you won’t know that for decades. Psychology, sociology, and psychiatry are completely captured and rarely if ever do real science research in a dispassionate and objective way. Nutrition is another one that has so many vested interests that basically everyone is claiming the science shows that their product is good for you or that it doesn’t cause obesity (honestly, I think the best advice is CICO and avoid foods that your ancestors in 1900 wouldn’t have recognized as food). I think given the absolute weaponization of “the Science” as distinct from the actual scientific method and actual intellectual honesty, it’s generally best to assume great grandparents were right and the new political and social ideas are at best suspect— unless they come with serious receipts.
Trans and Covid simply revealed the rot at the bottom of academia where most science is done to further an agenda rather than to increase human knowledge.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I think watching the democrats, it’s fairly clear that they don’t really believe the stuff they’re telling the public. If they believe that this is the prelude to a coup, or tge destruction of these institutions as a permanent thing, or that Trump is setting up a fascist system, they’d absolutely be doing those kinds of things. They’d absolutely filibuster in congress so no congressional actions would be possible. What they’re actually doing is … nothing. And the mismatch is pretty obvious. Especially when you compare the actions of people in the know (administrative people and Congress) with the people outside the system who believe the rhetoric they used.
It’s certainly possible that they’re wrong and we actually are poised on the brink of a fascist dictatorship. But when the people in the know are acting like it’s all fine, I can’t take the idea seriously.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5mo ago
I think the big thing dooming Facebook was that it didn’t recognize the difference between social circles for a long time, which leads to a kind of self censorship. Once people understood that anyone you’d friended could see everything, it became pretty clear that you couldn’t say just anything on Facebook because everyone from your boss to your granny could see it. Posting wild party pictures, or talking with your friends in ways that would offend people became a potential liability.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5mo ago
I think the issue of lost trust has an impact on the park and 3rd space issue. Those places often end up attracting homeless people, criminals, drug users etc. because they’re free to the public and thus nobody can stop them. Which makes nobody else want to really use the space for the intended purpose. And thus when people want a third space that they can be relatively sure is safe for them and their family, the admission charge is a feature, not a bug. The same sort of problem plagues the building of public transit. It cannot go anywhere useful (because people move to good neighborhoods to avoid the kinds of people who ride buses, subways, and trains), and because the public transport itself often invites the criminals and homeless and others. You aren’t going to see either thing take off until the issues creating a low trust society are solved.
I think in some cases it’s why the internet has become the hangout of choice. Watching TV or doing things online doesn’t involve contact with such undesirables or the results of their activities. Buying online is simpler because you don’t have to hunt down an employee to unlock the item you want.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
7mo ago
I think that the propaganda machine is to blame as well. Look at just about anything on television or any movie, music, etc. The resounding themes are family is a drag, parents are idiots or don’t care, and that the point of life is hedonistic pleasure which things like family and religion are drags on. I’ve challenged people with this, and it’s hard to do it. Find four mainstream television shows that show intact, loving, and competent families. Find four such shows where religion and particularly Christianity is portrayed as good wholesome, and not full of hypocrisy and repression. When the entire culture tells you over and over that families and traditions and religion are a drag on your individual hedonistic pleasure seeking, and that the highest good of life is hedonistic pleasures, it’s not shocking to me that families are dying.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
7mo ago
Honestly I don’t think this is just the foreign affairs people, it’s becoming endemic to most PMCs through the creeping credentialism promoted by university. There’s a large and growing population of people— most of them college graduates— who think that unless you have studied a topic in a college classroom, you cannot have possibly learned it. No, you cannot just read the Western canon and understand it. No, you cannot possibly learn philosophy without a lecture hall. No, you don’t understand math or statistics until you have gotten college credits.
I find the whole notion doubly ridiculous. First because people have self educated for hundreds of years, and it used to be the standard. Abraham Linchpin taught himself law by reading law books. Most of his peers did the same thing. And it wasn’t just law. If you wanted to run a business, you taught yourself accounting, and so on. Books, video, internet and other sources are much more available now than ever before, and any determined person can teach themselves just about anything they want to. They might have to work a bit harder than their peers who get spoon fed readings and practice sets, but in return, they will absolutely know their stuff as they aren’t studying for a test (and going to forget it afterwards) but trying to learn and understand it.
But much more importantly, I see a lot of ignorance in college grads that make me doubt the process does anything more than what they did in high school on most topics. They don’t actually understand the outside world. They don’t understand that electric cars are plugged into the electrical grid and thus would cause whatever types of pollution that our current electric grid causes. They don’t know anything concrete about other countries. Gays for Palestine is a joke that’s been told a million times, but it’s true, they don’t know what Islam has to say about LGBT rights. They don’t know the whole history of the conflict or why Jews went to Palestine in the first place. They cannot find Ukraine on an unlabeled map, nor do they know anything about its population, industry, minerals, or strategic importance. They have no idea why Russia wants it, nor the history of the region. Go down the list and it’s just amazing how the education that’s supposed to make you a better citizen of the country and the world produces a population with strong opinions but no knowledge.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
8mo ago
One thing that I think would go a very long way is taking claims of fraud seriously and taking serious steps to demonstrate that the electoral system is being run to prevent fraud. So if I were in charge of the election system, I’d require that some sort of government issued photo ID be used. I’d bend over backwards to make it easy (with proper source documents) to get those kinds of IDs. Second, I’d create an organized and fair way to validate the voter rolls such that we don’t have large numbers of people on the rolls that should not be there. Matching up names to death certificates seems like a good way to get rid of dead people on the rolls. And I’m probably not too far off in saying that if you haven’t filed state income taxes or applied for state benefits in 3 or more years, you probably don’t live here. If you’re required to prove citizenship to register, I think that would go pretty far to prevent illegals from voting.
The counting I think could be shown online without too much problem. And I think doing so would be helpful because it’s a lot harder to monkey with a count that is done publicly. And I think I’d probably also have the totals by precinct and even voting location would make it hard to inject ballots without someone noticing. I want to make auditing easier without being able to identify who voted for whom is the goal. I’m not sure if it would be possible to have a sort of blockchain setup that would allow people to track their own ballot from the moment they cast it until it’s officially tallied, but if it’s possible, not only would it help with building trust, but would make audits easier as you’d end up having ballots show up that were not cast anywhere.
Third, I’d take reports of anomalies seriously. I don’t care what people think they’re seeing, but if it’s possible fraud, it deserves a full investigation. And prosecution for fraud should be a part of that.
Do all of that, and I don’t think anyone could doubt that the election was honest.
Okay.
I’m less and less in favor of libertarian ideas than I was before. There are some behaviors that are harmful to society even if done behind closed doors because the pathologies they cause or enable tend to be a net drain on resources. Drug use is a big one, which is being made more obvious by the recent legalization of marijuana. But the same can be said of both the consumption and production of porn, the glorification of overconsumption and consumerism, and the normalization of ignorance.
There is an actual fate. Blank slates and infinite possibilities are both absurd lies we tell ourselves because we can no longer tolerate the notion of limits to ourselves and others around us. The results have been a disaster. We teach kids to want things that they won’t be able to achieve and then they get stuck with the horrific realization at 25 that they will have lifelong consequences for believing that junk we told them in school and on TV. It also creates social problems as those who were promised a future in the now over saturated elite ranks agitate for what they were told was a birthright, and at the same time the low status jobs go unfilled because those who should be doing those jobs went for elite jobs. Or we tell women to girlboss which, frankly only maybe 5% of women can even be middling good at, and get shocked when it means that women aren’t filling the traditional female jobs or having kids.
Crime is only deterred by the certainty and harshness of punishment. Compassion is nice, but what it teaches criminals is that there are no consequences to doing serious crimes. The results are that areas of the city where criminals are most active become too dangerous to live or work in. And this harms those too poor to flee. What those areas need is over-policing, harsh punishment for first time offenders, and zero tolerance for crime no matter what the criminal’s past is. When people don’t have reason to fear the lawman, the law doesn’t exist, and eventually you have people forced into defending themselves.
Most of the wokeness in schools and Hollywood is a result, not a cause of the decline of those institutions. We aren’t teaching that just because the state says to. We teach it because we have lost the institutional ability to teach math, science, reading and writing. Test scores on those subjects are not good, and a ten minute conversation with even college graduates shows a shocking level of ignorance about the world outside of their bubble. Unless you’re a STEM student, chances are that you know less about the outside world than their high school educated grandparents at the same age. In the arts, I suggest the same thing — the complexity of characters, plots and dialogue have fallen quite a bit from the kinds of things people were writing a generation ago. Modern art frankly sucks at this point, as artists generally lack the skill to make representations of the real world.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
11mo ago
I think there’s another reason for the environmental and student loan gap between men and women. It’s the level of interaction with the economy that drives those divisions. For a man his interaction with the economic system is “I have to get a good job or be a failure.” This makes men a lot less willing to slow the economy for the environment, and much more likely to choose economically viable majors. For a woman interaction with the economy isn’t about success and survival, it’s about prestige in some sense. They don’t have to care about the money as much (that’s their husband’s job) so they tend to cluster in aspirational positions and fun arty jobs and so on. Those jobs aren’t needed and aren’t necessarily subject to the constraints of the government. They also don’t pay that well, despite women getting 4-year degrees to qualify for them. So women want out from under the loans, obviously. And because they’re not doing work that would be harmed by the government enforcement of environmental regulations, they don’t need to stop them.
"Legalizing gay marriage was not just 'allow different people to do their own thing' it was, 'change the basic way every child is taught about the basic institutions and building blocks of life.'"
I keep thinking about the rot here, and I think it goes back to in a certain sense that modern WEIRD people have a really hard time — for whatever reason— settling serious boundaries around things that should be obvious. Gay marriage is the last in a very long line of those kinds of decisions, but far from the only one. We can’t really say “no” on deconstruction of our heritage, the denigrating of our heroes, or the insistence that other people’s history or culture be taught alongside our own. Even among ourselves, for whatever reason, it’s rude in most circles to criticize others for casual sex, excessive drinking, or drug use. It’s really a strange thing that doesn’t happen in other places.
More options
Context Copy link