DrivebyHaiku

JFC, people were having kids during the bubonic plague, Chinese revolts that killed millions and through two world wars. People are having kids in Ukraine and Palestine, right now.

"No! The world is too harsh!"

Difference being in those examples a lack of choice. The advent of modern birth control and reliable medical care which war-torn countries lack has changed the game. When you cite populations that feared absolute collapse there is a added social swell of responsibility that isn't present in places where there is reasonable security. We are in a period where in the US due to legislation post fall of Roe V Wade the mortality rate of pregnant people is worse than for front line police. If you are a person of color this rate jumps to being higher than the mortality rate of US soldiers. We are currently in a situation where having children is a form of enlistment rather than concription and thus people are making their choices based on personal values and how willing they are to assume growing personal risk.

80 years ago a single income did the trick but endless generations of women who allowed themselves to be homemakers have discovered that their financial security and the security of their offspring was dependent on something as fickle as their working partner's affections. In a world where a gap in a resume is a cardinal sin it means the fallout for something they had no control over is often working low paying low weekly hour jobs. The dual income household is the norm. People who are struggling now see the added cost, work, pain, health risk and struggle and that means unless you absolutely want kids the cost in time, effort and money has a higher bar to clear. Since there are available practical means of having sexuallity which is lowkey a requirement of a lot of romantic relationships without it being reproductive it is an elective decision. The US is trying to take those choices away or force people to keep children they don't want which has meant the response has become political. People cite political reasons : climate change, economic, environmental impacts, social deficit, lack of support in part because they are effectively protesting severe top down austerity and anti-long term public welfare attitudes.

When there is growing pressure from natalists the backlash grows and these become hard lines in the sand.

Using AI therepy providers really isn't recommended! There's no accountability built in for AI therapy chatbots and their efficacy when placed under professional review has been really not great. These models may seem like they are dispensing hard truths - because humans are often primed to not believe more optimistic or gentle takes thinking them to be explicitly flattering and thus false. Runaway negativity feels true but it can lead you to embrace unhealthy attitudes towards your self and others. AI runs with the assumptions you go in with in part because these models are designed from an engagement first perspective. They will do whatever keeps you on the hook whether or not it is actually good for you. You might think you are getting quality care but unless you are a trained professional you are not actually equipped to know if the help you are getting is of good quality only that it feels validating to you. If it errs there is no consequences to the provider unlike human professionals who have a code of ethics and licencing boards that can conduct investigation for bad practices.

Once AI discovers whatever you report back to it you think is correct it will continue to use that tactic. Essentially it is tricking you into being your own unqualified therepist.

https://hai.stanford.edu/news/exploring-the-dangers-of-ai-in-mental-health-care

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-ai-therapy-can-be-so-dangerous/

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.