DrivebyHaiku

It's kind of a neutral thing to say be honest. This advice is usually good to give young people or people who are legitimately in a situation where it will get better like grief of a recent loss that you have mutually experienced but to a lot of people this comes across as minimizing their pain, offering an ultimately empty platitude that doesn't co-relate to their situation or as naive because sometimes things really won't get better. Sometimes you really need to find a way to survive knowing you do so under permanent duress and that requires support rather than generic advice to grit your teeth.

Therapy is a great thing to recommend but anecdotes of how one person got through depressive episodes by sheer force of will and by doing something that can seem a monumental task depending on circumstances can actually make someone feel worse.

Not saying you should feel bad here. This is a very common thing people say particularly due to mental health campaigns targeted at teens but if you are looking for overwhelming positive feedback this might not be the way.

Kind of yeah? My friends encounter this phenomenon. It's definitely not every man but these days everyone of my female buds is in long term commited relationships and if they get approached by a guy a lot of the time they will often cite the relationship they are in before their no and these guys will keep pushing. It means that they get stuck in the most awkward situation where the guy won't leave. Those girls that have gotten angry from not having their no listened to (particularly from the frustration of dealing with this often) have risked using a stronger no saying they aren't interested or to please leave them be and there's always a really good chance the guy will try to enact some kind of revenge. Guys getting verbally abusive is the most common outcome.

Oftentimes with attractive folk there's a buddy system in play where someone will come to your rescue to end the interaction.

A lot of the bible that gets followed by mega churches follows the doctrine of Paul who never met Jesus and was a power hungry bastard who claimed to have hallucinated Jesus after he got hit on the head with a rock.

The idea of salvation through Jesus being through faith and not actions, throwing money at churches, treating any sex for pleasure as an apex sin comes from him.

Effectively these are not Christians but Paulians.

There is evidence of a number of uses of vernacular written language in archeological sites. The matter of literacy as mentioned around the advent of the Doomsday Book was not a measure of who could read common vernacular they way literate tends to mean today. It was a measure of who had completed their letters. A set form of schooling that covered about six years worth of language education and numeracy. So it's kind of hard to track actual literacy rates given sources at the time because the bar to count as "literate" by census records was specific. The majority of college level modern users of language would be unable to clear that bar. I would not be considered literate because I can only write vernacular. So you are semi-correct in that sense yes only nobles and men of the church were "literate" by standards of the time.

There are a number of archeological finds throughout the medieval ages that showed a general upward trend of the skill of being able to read and write fairly basic missives amongst humble people. A lot of our surviving evidence of peasant writing is on very rudimentary materials like bark and it is very practical use. People learned the skill from other people for doing stuff like writing IOUs or orders for goods or as reminders and most examples that survived were under 20 words in length. In a lot of places being able to read and write wasn't considered remarkable enough to record as a special skill unless you could do it in Latin. This is why you find books written for common people like the Dite de Hosebondrie ( Husbandry) for the peasant farmer or guides for common housewives in the 13th century in "rustic" language styles. Books were uncommon and expensive and you had to go to them to read them but the people who they were written for weren't always nobles or clergy.

https://www.medievalists.net/2024/11/medieval-daily-life-on-birchbark/

Not quite true that nobles and priests were the only ones that knew how to read. Lower classes absolutely knew how to read they just didn't use that knowledge for writing books - they used it for communicating and for legal purposes. The lower classes were actually quite litigious and a subsect of them required literacy as a means of self advocacy, occasional resistance and survival.

The concept of the peasantry being unschooled, idiot commons without the brains and means to aquire knowledge has always been a way to keep you and I, people who came after as their legacy, distanced from their history so we could instead align ourselves with the rich and powerful who could be seen as the "creators" of society and culture.

Those peasants and serfs were a lot more like us than people think.

Looking at humans from a capitalist standpoint, since we are living in a highly mechanized and optimized labor society there will always be a surplus of labour. Not everyone needs to work and over time less and less people will need to work to sustain the whole. Defining humans as worthy to live or not based on their capacity to work means you accept some humans as surplus, fungible and ultimately liquidatable because the system has no use for them even if they are healthy and ablebodied.

This is not how you treat people. This is how you appraise livestock.

If you have ever attempted to change your name you know it is way more annoying to change your name than accept someone else's change of name. The amount of admin it takes to make that update in your social circle even before you try and make it legal is a test of social fortitude and willpower.

Remember when someone is changing their name they are very aware of the imposition of the mental load they are placing on you. Grace goes a long way.

Technically depending on where you are staying on property after you have been asked to leave counts as different types of crime. In America it's a tresspass misdemeanor with fines usually a couple of hundred dollars so it's not uncommon for folks to just pay the fee to be a nuisance. In Canada it's called "Assault by Tresspass" and is considered for criminal purposes a form of assault and the fines are about 10 grand.

Generally speaking if you want cops to enforce a law with enthusiasm you have to make it worth the systems while.

Not quite. The Conservative party mostly put their money on a bunch of culture war stuff and were aiming to defang a bunch of regulatory bodies. Carney is basically an Old School conservative who is trying to appeal to the conservative votership who ditched the actual Conservative party by pulling a bunch of moves that flatter areas that are dependant on oil so he can compete with what are essentially American psy-ops to goad Canadian resource heavy provinces into making policy which favours private American business.

He's trying to be a unifying force since most of the country was going to vote blue and the political situation with the states requires a lot of solidarity. He is basically a fiscal conservative Monarchist wet dream while keeping quiet on not rolling back Progressive social agendas of yesteryear. So... Lesser of two evils mostly.

It's not just family and upbringing it's kind of enforced by basically everyone a little bit. House is a mess - oh (fem partner) must be struggling poor dear. The state of the house just sits in a corner of their mind all day everyday like a weight dragging them down like the telltale heart.

Once you see the effect of it you can't really unsee it.

No kidding. The enforcement is often kind of brutal too. As a couple the house not being clean creates a pervasive sense of judgement that falls on the feminine half of a couple. It doesn't matter if they are a killer breadwinner with an amazing career and winning at life the messaging and conditioning from childhood and enforced by older friends and relatives is still that they are at their core a failure if their house doesn't meet regulation. That judgement is not extended to the masculine partner because he's kind of expected to be a hapless subordinate who maybe helps but is not responsible for it. That old "sorry about the state of the place" is practically just begging for social leniency from deeply ingrained shame.

If your fem partner is neurotic about cleanliness that's basically why. They are made to feel horrible about themselves when company comes calling.

I did not call Americans morons nor was my intention to tell you what to do to solve the problem. I simply told you why there isn't more help coming from the outside. It's not a matter of people deliberately sitting on their hands.

Unless American leadership breaks the International rules enough to get the sign on of multiple countries to work in concert against America in a world war you are on your own because of rules designed to allow countries to self govern. Other countries cannot alter another country's government for good or for ill. This is not an indictment of the voting habits or a rebuke of the process of citizen power the American public.

Whether you or any other country solve your problem democratically or through violent collapse the world is handcuffed. There are civil wars going on right now in other countries and the rules are the same for them as they are for you. The world will recognize whatever government is effectively in power once the dust settles but outsiders cannot lawfully tip the scale and go kingmaking unless one side of the conflict violates the rules of war. War itself is not internationally illegal. The US falling into a full on civil war is kosher from an international law standpoint.

The USA has a historic tendency to ignore that international legality and go kingmaking themselves utilizing the resource of spies and subterfuge ONLY because they are singularly powerful enough on the world stage to get away with it. America essentially declared itself a world police force and the sheer infrastructure they have worldwide means that no individual country can compete. Look for yourself how many bases America has on foreign soil compared to every other country. How many armaments and millitary force and how, their ethics policies of their intelligence agencies differ. America is singularly unique. It may be why you believe the rest of the world will help you "fix" things but that's not in the interests of the rest of the world.

Foriegn leaders are "standing up to America" but they are doing so by cutting themselves free of American coercion for the security and benefit of their own citizens. By framing America out of the picture and moving reliance to other countries and letting America starve itself once the supply chain contracts and treaties expire they will decrease American influence on world policy. It doesn't benifit those countries to try and swoop in and shore up a crumbling empire which has held guns to their heads for generations. International help currently isn't coming for American citizens. Unless your country fixes it's problems itself fairly soon the "standing up to America" that is happening will level your economy and diplomatic power as other governments profit from the diminishing of American hard power that will continue for decades.

Believing that someone is or should be coming to your rescue may not be in your best interest. Not when so many stand to gain long term from your division.