2008.01.25 04:52 Ask Reddit...
AskReddit is the place to ask and answer thought-provoking questions.
2009.08.12 08:27 surfwax95 TOMT: When you can't remember that…thing…
Can't remember the name of that movie you saw when you were a kid? Or the name of that video game you had for Game Gear? This is the place to get help. Read the rules and suggestions of this subreddit for tips on how to get the most out of TOMT. (Located right side on desktop, varies on mobile.)
2009.04.30 16:51 jon_k An alternative askreddit to avoid stupidity.
2020.11.26 23:31 ghostbyghosts Several year old accounts that woke up three months ago to farm karma. One has recently taken an interest in cryptocurrencies within the past three days.
submitted by ghostbyghosts
to TheseFuckingAccounts [link] [comments]
2020.11.26 20:20 ais8585 Lawsplainer: COVID & the Basics of Religious Rights
Hi All— Preface.
So: I had originally planned on making this first post about jurisdiction and a general overview about the way courts work, but I’ve changed my mind and anonymity makes me impervious to all demands for accountability. That said, I’ve changed my mind for two reasons: (1)
the Supreme Court issued a really interesting decision yesterday and I want to talk about as it’s rather timely (being about permissible Covid restrictions); and (2)
I’m really sympathetic to the views expressed in this thread
, in which various readers flagged my post last week as one of the potentially not-quite-relevant-enough entries, which is largely my own fault—for what it’s worth, my working plan, which I didn’t articulate enough, is more to use interesting legal issues to flag interesting SSC-ish issues, i.e., the focus is going to be a lot less on “here is how the law works…” and more on “look at the legal rules and hey
, don’t they raise all sorts of interesting philosophical issues?” (Scott’s review of David Friedman’s Legal Systems Very Different from Ours
is a fairly good example of the general approach I intend to take, as is the whole field of “law and economics
,” in which Friedman’s very involved
.) And I think this post is a good enough way to highlight that. Without further ado: SCOTUS Decision.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case called Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew Cuomo
(“Diocese v. Cuomo”). (Link to the decision here
.) The opinion follows a decision by a “lower” court, the Second Circuit, which came out a few weeks ago and reaches the opposite conclusion [fn 1
]. (You can read that decision by searching “20-3590” “in the bar on this page.) The title of the case is actually a little misleading, because the case ultimately concerns lawsuits filed by both the diocese and Agudath Israel, an orthodox Jewish organization who messed up their appeal for various procedural reasons, which is the primary reason they’re not named in the caption. The two appeals concern New York States’ management of the Covid-19 pandemic, and in particular an executive order issued by Cuomo on October 4 that directed the New York State Department of Health to identify yellow, orange, and red “zones” in New York based on the severity of Covid outbreaks and to impose correspondingly severe restrictions on gatherings and activity within each zone. The appellants—i.e., Agudath and the Diocese—each challenged the executive order as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, arguing that they each have places of worship among the affected zones—notably Brooklyn and Queens—and that the restrictions, which have had the effect of canceling or else limiting capacity at various religious services, ultimately burden their members more than the general public. The appellants are seeking an injunction against enforcement of the order; an injunction is just what you’d think it is from meeting that term in deontological ethics (or rule utilitarianism)—an absolute prohibition.
So that the actual issues here sense-make I’m going to do a super quick overview of basic religious rights before jumping in.
Religious Rights Generally (& “Standards of Review”). Among other things, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” For obvious reasons, the first clause here is called the “Establishment Clause,” and the second the “Free Exercise Clause.” They both do diametrically opposite things: the establishment clause prohibits the government from promoting (i.e., showing a preference) for one religion over another, or (sort of, long story) for any religion over “non-religion,” at least where the government doesn’t have a good reason for doing so. It’s the constitutional provision that prohibits, e.g., teacher-led prayer and bible readings in public schools, posting the ten commandments in courtrooms and public schools, prohibiting the teaching of evolution, and certain tax exemptions for religious organizations (more on the italicized word in a moment). The free exercise clause, meanwhile, prohibits the government from discriminating against religious “beliefs” and “actions”—to be contrasted with religious ~institutions~, which are the primary subject of the establishment clause—at least where it doesn’t have a good reason for doing so. It’s the provision that prohibits the government from, e.g., denying someone employment benefits because they refuse to work on the Sabbath or—more to the point—making it a crime to pray etc.
Now—and this is a slight simplification, but only a slight one—the government is allowed to both promote and/or discriminate against religion if one of two conditions are met. (Both are sufficient conditions for the government being allowed to do whatever it is it wants to do—i.e., it only has to be proven [fn: 2] that the government has met one condition for the law to be constitutional (at least as far as these provisions are concerned).
First, if the law it is using to promote or discriminate is a “law of general applicability,” i.e., (a) the law only “incidentally” benefits religion (in the establishment context) or burdens it (in the free exercise context), and (b) wasn’t passed with the intent to “target” religious institutions and/or acts/beliefs. Note that (a) is this consequentialist-like rule, focusing on effects, and (b) is a thought-crimey deontological injunction applied to the legislature (or the executive issuing an order) regardless of the law’s ultimate consequences. (What this ultimately means in the establishment context is that the law must have a “secular purpose” and its “primary effect” is not to “advance” a particular religion or “inhibit” a religion to another’s benefit, which effectively amounts to the same thing.)
An illustrative example here, for both contexts, is tax breaks: if the government gives tax breaks to non-profits whilst excluding religious non-profits from those tax breaks, it’s likely impermissibly discriminated against religion and violated the free exercise clause; meanwhile, if it gives tax breaks to religious organizations without giving them to secular non-profits, it’s likely impermissibly promoted religion and violated the establishment clause. But, if the government just passes the law giving tax breaks to non-profits, and some religious organizations just so happen to be (“incidentally”) included, the law is likely a-okay so long as it doesn’t fail a test called “rational basis” review, which effectively means that so long as the government’s “end” (i.e., goal) is “legitimate” (i.e., is something government ought care about, e.g., public health) and the “means” it chose to go about pursuing that end are “rationally related” to that end. (Importantly, the “rationally related” test for “means” doesn’t give a shit if the government’s actions are hugely over- and/or under-inclusive
Second, even if the law isn’t one of general applicability—either because it was intended to target religions or just has such a hugely disproportionate effect of them regardless of intent that the court can basically just infer it was effectively meant to benefit/burden religion—the law will still be constitutional (at least if it doesn’t violate random other provisions) if the government can show it has a really, really damn good reason for targeting religion directly. The test here is called “strict scrutiny” review and requires the government show it has a “compelling” interest/end (way higher than a “legitimate” interest) and that its means are “narrowly tailored” to that end (i.e., the law is not remotely over- or under-inclusive and that there are no “less restrictive alternatives” (i.e., better ways to achieve the same goal). Strict scrutiny is often called “fatal in fact” because once it gets to this stage 99 times out of 100 the government can’t prove one of either the compelling or narrowly tailored bits. I actually can’t think of any laws in the religious context, under either clause, that have ever passed strict scrutiny, which is to say that as far as I know every time a court has determined that the law “targeted” religion it struck that law down at this second step. (I could certainly be wrong about this and vaguely recall a case on the question of whether a law saying vouchers can’t be used for religious schools was okay, and I think it might have been okay even though the law drew strict scrutiny. Can’t find it, maybe another lawyer-reader here can help me out.)
Back to Diocese v. Cuomo**.** All that out of the way, back to the actual opinion. Basically, what the Supreme Court does in issue a temporary injunction against enforcement of Cuomo’s executive order until the hearing on the merits of the permanent order can be held. In this case, as in a lot of cases for injunctive relief, the temporary injunction’s likely more or less the whole ball game given the issue may well be “moot”—i.e., no longer an active issue—by the time the glacially slow-moving federal system actually gets to the hearing on the permanent order, and given the harm of having the order enforced or the harm in not having it enforced, will obviously accrue in the meantime. Basically, to get this “temporary” injunction the Diocese/Agudath (the “plaintiffs” or “appellants”) had to demonstrate (1) that they would suffer “irreparable injury” while waiting on the hearing for the permanent injunction, which is sort of a bullshit inquiry, and, more to the point (2) “a likelihood of success on the merits,” i.e., that they’re likely to win the hearing. The Second Circuit held that (2) wasn’t met (and consequently didn’t grant the temp injunction) and SCOTUS disagreed, saying it was met, and granted the injunction (thereby “reversing” the Second Circuit).
In essence, the disagreement between the two courts reduces to the issue we met above: the government’s argued its order is one of general applicability (i.e., a “neutral” law that only incidentally burdens religious practice), while the appellants have argued it specifically targets religion, therefore draws strict scrutiny, and therefore is very likely to be found unconstitutional (under the free exercise clause) at the hearing on the permanent order precisely because strict scrutiny is more-or-less “fatal in fact.” The Second Circuit found it was a neutral law and would likely be upheld under the rational basis review neural laws get; SCOTUS held it wasn’t a neutral law and would therefore likely be struck down under the strict scrutiny review non-neutral laws get. Why the disagreement?
Well: under the executive order, churches and synagogues are treated ~worse~ than “essential” (secular) businesses (e.g., grocery stores) but actually better than non-essential (secular) businesses (e.g., lectures/concerts). (How exactly it does this is a wee-bit confusing and technical, but you can skim the opinion at the link above; take my word on it for now.) The dispute therefore reduces to whether the relevant comparator for the churches/synagogues is the essential businesses or the non-essential ones. If it’s the former, then it looks like maybe churches/synagogues are being purposefully discriminated against (leading to strict scrutiny), while if it’s the latter then it looks like the churches/synagogues should sit down, shut up, and be grateful. (Funny enough, you might actually notice that, framed a little differently, these same questions actually raise an establishment clause issue in the reverse direction: if the relevant comparator is non-essential businesses, and churches are being treated better than those businesses, then that looks like a potential establishment clause violation; the various decisions don’t mention this because that’s not the legal challenge that was brought/judges are sticklers for procedure, but it does illustrate how much of a tightrope walk it is to pass laws that affect religions, even indirectly.)
New York itself obviously maintained that the relevant comparator is non-essential businesses, and the Second Circuit agreed. But the majority of SCOTUS said the relevant comparator in essential businesses. Why?
Supreme Court Opinion [Justice Gorsuch (conservative)] [fn: 3]:
"[T]he Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience? …
In a red zone, for example, a church or synagogue must adhere to a 10-person attendance cap, while a grocery store, pet store, or big-box store down the street does not face the same restriction. In an orange zone, the discrimination against religion is even starker: Essential businesses and many non-essential businesses are subject to no attendance caps at all…. The State argues that it has not impermissibly discriminated against religion because some secular businesses such as movie theaters must remain closed and are thus treated less favorably than houses of worship… it does not suffice for a State to point out that, as compared to houses of worship, some secular businesses are subject to similarly severe or even more severe restrictions…Once a State creates a favored class of businesses, as New York has done in this case, the State must justify why houses of worship are excluded from that favored class."
Contrariwise, here’s the Second Circuit on some of the relevant evidence:
"While it is true that the challenged order burdens the Appellants’ religious practices, the order is not “substantially underinclusive” given its greater or equal impact on schools, restaurants, and comparable secular public gatherings…Before the District Courts, the State also explained why gatherings at certain large commercial stores deemed essential are not meaningfully comparable to religious gatherings. Unlike shopping at large stores, an in person religious service or ceremony necessarily involves a community of adherents arriving and leaving at the same time and interacting and praying together over an extended period of time. The State provided unrebutted evidence that this type of purposeful interaction poses a higher risk of transmission of the coronavirus; the District Courts so found."
And the Supreme Court dissents [Justices Sotamayer and Breyer (libs)] (i.e., on the same side as the Second Circuit):
"After receiving evidence and hearing witness testimony, the District Court in the Diocese’s case found that New York’s regulations were “crafted based on science and for epidemiological purposes.” It wrote that they treated “religious gatherings . . . more favorably than similar gatherings” with comparable risks, such as “public lectures, concerts or theatrical performances.” The court also recognized the Diocese’s argument that the regulations treated religious gatherings less favorably than what the State has called “essential businesses,” including, for example, grocery stores and banks. But the court found these essential businesses to be distinguishable from religious services and declined to “second guess the State’s judgment about what should qualify as an essential business.”…New York applies “[s]imilar or more severe restrictions . . . to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.” Likewise, New York “treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.” That should be enough to decide this case.
The Diocese attempts to…[win]…by disputing New York’s conclusion that attending religious services poses greater risks than, for instance, shopping at big box stores. But the District Court rejected that argument as unsupported by the factual record. Undeterred, JUSTICE GORSUCH offers up his own examples of secular activities he thinks might pose similar risks as religious gatherings, but which are treated more leniently under New York’s rules (e.g., going to the liquor store or getting a bike repaired). But JUSTICE GORSUCH does not even try to square his examples with the conditions medical experts tell us facilitate the spread of COVID–19: large groups of people gathering, speaking, and singing in close proximity indoors for extended periods of time. Unlike religious services, which “have every one of th[ose] risk factors,” bike repair shops and liquor stores generally do not feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more at a time.”
Anyway, so that’s that. Onward to some commentary.
The Constitution as a “Suicide Pact” & “Democratic Failure.” Gorsuch begins his opinion with the phrase “Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis.” This is a really strange sentence coming from a conservative justice; it ties into a long history around the question of whether the constitution is a “suicide pact,” which was a huge conversation post-9/11. Back then, in the face of widespread detentions of Muslim Americans, increased surveillance, ethnic profiling, and kaleidoscopic violations of due process, conservatives were strongly arguing the other side of it. Notwithstanding three exceptions in three related rulings re: Guantanamo Bay, Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) the Rehnquist and Roberts’ courts’ attitude throughout all of those post 9/11 measures was one of straight-up acquiescence and of deference to the executive branch. Rehnquist (the conservative former chief justice) wrote a whole book on how “judicial inquiry, with its restrictive rules of evidence, orientation towards resolution of factual disputes in individual cases, and long delays, is ill-suited to determine an issue such as ‘military necessity’ [during times of emergency, i.e., during the war on terror].”
The motivating idea here, and in conservative circles more generally, was that the constitution and rule of law need to be nowhere near as binding in times of emergency (as against periods of normalcy) lest the whole republic go under because we were wed to some deontological injunction like “free speech good.” (Lincoln: “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?”) The position then was typically presented as a really utilitarian argument. (For what it’s worth I think it’s a hugely flawed act-utilitarian one that focuses only on first-order consequences, and maybe I’ll followup on this in the comments.) The gist was: (1) that security must always—even in periods of normalcy—be balanced (or ‘traded off’) against liberty; (2) that in times of emergency this tradeoff is generally a necessary one; and (3) that in times of emergency security should trade at a high premium, because constitutional democracies provide agreeable places for terrorist groups to transmit messages, grow, and plot their plots, and many basic rights and civil liberties impede the executive from stopping these plots and providing sufficient security, however defined. Stated formally, the contention is that there exists something like a Pareto frontier bounding security and liberty, such that at the frontier neither security nor liberty can be increased without decreasing the other, like so:
And the liberal response, post-9/11 was that in that model the issue of distribution of benefits and burdens is entirely absent: it presents a democracy as a single entity, trading off its liberty for its security and vice versa, but—the argument goes—that’s is too holistic a picture. When we talk of balancing liberties against security, we need to pay attention to the fact that derogations in liberty will affect some citizens more than others. Here’s Jeremy Waldron: “We must always ask whose security is being traded off against whose liberty…[the worry is that] majorities will externalize the costs of security onto ethnic minorities, aliens, or noncitizens, in effect taking the latter groups’ liberties for public use and without just compensation.”
In any event, it’s strange to see this conversation shifting in light of covid, and I’m curious to hear if how everyone thinks these emergency rationales ought apply across the domestic (pandemic) and military (9/11) contexts. Consistently? Inconsistently? (Fun little side-bar on in this footnote [fn: 4].)
Finding the Right Comparator. As discussed above, the SCOTUS decision ultimately reduces to a question of the relevant comparator, which is sort of a factual question, but one which the value-preferences of the judges obviously hugely dictates. Got lots of thoughts here I’ll likely add later, but just want to flag this commentary. (Is this the sort of question there’s a meaningfully right answer to? i.e., Is there a way to bridge the gap between the two sides that doesn’t include the words “Aumann’s agreement theorem”?
Mistake & Conflict Theory. In a dissenting opinion the Chief Justice—Roberts—does the judicial equivalent of putting Gorsuch on blast; quoting Gorsuch, he writes: The background here is that Roberts has been really trying to hold the court together in a time when it’s really struggling with its perceived legitimacy. (Typically in a wholly disingenuous way, imho.) Ya’ll might also remember the late Justice Antonin Scalia, beloved by all in states with ≥ 2 right angle borders; Scalia really kicked off a new norm of justices—typically the conservative justices—accusing their (typically liberal) colleagues of bad faith, and the net effect is that quasi-open hostility, or what we might call conflict theory, has really picked up in the judiciary, which of course sets the standard for lawyers across the country. And law has been a resolutely mistake-theory field forever. (Opposing counsels never lie, even when they clearly goddamn do; they simply make good faith mistakes about the law.) I’m really torn on these developments. On the one hand, these mistake-norms have developed in response to the common law (i.e., adversarial) system, and to some extent are obviously necessary for it to function correctly, and on the other hand (1) increasing polarization, and (2) these mistake norms so often lead to sheer insanity. “Respectfully, your honor, I believe you may be mistaken about your lawful ability to refuse to set bail on this disabled, single, African-American mother who stole a pack of diapers for her children” vs. the obvious “Respectfully, your honor, those black robes should come with a white hood.” (Regardless, we obviously have to keep “respectfully,” the indispensable adverb of a lawyer about to say something disrespectful.) Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts here.
Largely Irrelevant Thoughts on Religious Arbitration. This is near-totally irrelevant, just something that’s been on my mid a lot recently. Instead of going to court, parties can often opt (in a contract) to resolve whatever disputes they have via arbitration, and to have that arbitration be binding (i.e., to be enforced by courts/ the coercive power of the state generally). And, funny enough, you can actually opt into arbitration where the arbitrators will apply a totally different set of rules than, you know, actual laws. A big subset of this is religious arbitration in the orthodox Jewish community, and the end result is that the rest of us sometimes find ourselves enforcing judgements—via democratically-sanctioned state-led coercion—that we find (or ought to find) morally and politically repugnant. Again, torn on this—volenti non fit injuria vs. how secure the right of exit in this communities (i.e., from being quasi-forced into this arbitration) actually is. My gut feeling is this is different in kind, not just degree, than (say) a church calling the police of ex-communicated trespassers or some such, which I personally have no problems with and think of as a logical extension of the freedom of association. Jacob T. Levy provides a really neat conceptual framework for thinking about these things in his book Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom, particularly the chapter on “pure” and “congruence” approaches to freedom of association. Gist of those ideas here. Thoughts?
I’ll likely add some more random little paragraphs on various other related things over the next few days. Will add them all under this sentence, if anyone thinks they’d like to check back.
fn 1: Typically, in the federal system, there’s a trial or hearing at a trial court, called a district court, then the losing party near-always has an automatic right to appeal the district court’s decision up to a (“Circuit”) Court of Appeal (e.g., the Second Circuit, which covers NY, Connecticut, and Vermont) where (typically) three judges will determine if the trial court mis-applied the law, i.e., those there judges just look at whether the district court applied the law to the facts correctly whilst “deferring” to the trial court on what those facts actually were (unless the district court made a “clear error” on the facts, i.e., really messed up and forgot to read something). After that, the party that loses in the Court of Appeals can then appeal up to SCOTUS (via a process called a “petition for a writ of certiorari”), but don’t have a right to have SCOTUS review the case and SCOTUS will consequently tell them to get lost well over 95% of the time as it typically only takes cases of “supreme national importance” or where various Courts of Appeal have handed down inconsistent interpretations of a law in a way that’s creating major issues. This is a bit of an incomplete picture—among other things, the party that loses at the Court of Appeals can ask more judges from that Circuit to take a second look “en banc” before going up to SCOTUS, which it may or may not do. The appellate process if you begin in state court is a lot more confusing. Also: typically, parties in civil actions can get into a federal court if they have a constitutional or federal claim (under something called federal question jurisdiction) or if the plaintiffs and defendants are from different states (under something called diversity jurisdiction), but both of those are hugely confusing fields of law that don’t permit of easy summary. Suffice it to say this case involved constitutional rights and so federal courts have jurisdiction.
fn 2: The “burden” of proving the first bit, that the law isn’t one of neutral applicability, is on the plaintiffs (i.e., not the government; the people suing them), but if the plaintiffs can prove that much the burden “shifts” to the government at the second step to prove it has a really good reason for burdening/benefiting religion. This burden-shifting is the way rational basis and strict scrutiny review work is very-nearly all contexts, for example, when the standards are applied to racist/sexist laws (equal protection), or applied in a field knows as “substantive due process” laws (e.g., sex-orientation discrimination (Obergfell) and all sorts of other “privacy” rights), or in most (but not all) free-speech cases.
fn: 3: Supreme Court cases typically have a “majority” opinion, which is the ~winning~ decision that sets out the “holding” (i.e., the new rule or an application of an old rule to whatever new circumstances), and then, often, a dissenting opinion that says that holding is wrong for various reasons and thinks the court should have reached the opposite conclusion. But, of course, because this is law nothing is ever that simple. As relevant here, there can be multiple dissents, and there’s also something called concurrences, which are basically “I come out the same way as the majority but for different reasons.” This case actually doesn’t have a majority opinion, it has a “per curiam” opinion, which I’m not going to explain b/c it functions exactly the same as a majority opinion in these circumstances. (If you do extra research on per curiam opinions and try to understand why this case has a per curiam opinion and not a majority one, I promise you will end up wrong and hugely befuddled because this is a strange sort of per curiam opinion that isn’t really a real per curiam opinion for procedural reasons). This decision also has multiple concurrences (i.e., on the same side as that per curiam opinion), including the excerpt from Gorsuch I quote above as just the court’s “opinion” and one from Kavanaugh, as well as multiple dissents (the ones I quote from Sotamayer, Breyer, and Roberts below that). None of this is important, I just promised in the last post I’d never be actively misleading, so here I am being not actively misleading.
fn: 4: Both liberty and security are notoriously difficult concepts to define, and while talk of ‘balance’ certainly has connotations of quantity and precision the question of whether security and liberty can truly be properly ‘balanced’ is a fairly contentious one in legal literature. Here’s Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule (who argue in line with Gorsuch here, but in the post-9/11 context): “Official policies, whether instituted during an emergency or not, can intrude more (or less) on some margins while intruding less (or more) on others. At Time T the government policy for airport security is to search passengers who fit a given ethnic and religious profile. At Time T+I the policy changes to random searches; the new policy, let us say, imposes a cost (at least in an expected sense) on a greater number of people but reduces the stigma of being searched. Here it is senseless to ask whether liberty has been increased or decreased; instead it has been redistributed, by imposing a smaller deprivation more widely.” (For what it’s worth, Vermeule’s now nine-tenths of a fascist, so there’s that.)
submitted by ais8585
to slatestarcodex [link] [comments]
2020.11.26 17:44 Westofomaha55 People of reddit, why do you answer askreddit question?
submitted by Westofomaha55 to AskReddit [link] [comments]
2020.11.26 11:09 Mimerme lol
My first memory is of me still being coddled in my mothers arms while she was arguing with her mother, my grandmother. I don't remember what it was about but I remember my mother crying, carrying me out to the porch, and swinging on our old green swinging bench thing. I think I fell asleep in her arms. I normally cut it off at the first half when people ask me what my first memory was. I remember telling her about this years later (relatively recently) at the dinner table and she just kind of laughed and noted how good my memory was even from a young age. lol.
I don't remember a lot of great things from my childhood. Maybe if I list out the bad I can finally find the good.
- My father had a fascination with exercise, something he still holds to this day. I knew poor health ran in the family, his father had died at the ripe age of 50, and I don't know who but I remember him telling me the story of someone (maybe family?) who died after pedaling too hard to in the rain and dying of heart attack? after suddenly stopping after reaching home. I understood why he cared, but he wanted me to care. So we'd go on these runs, runs that I didn't want to. I'd trudge along behind as slow as possible to emulate walking, but keeping only one foot on the ground at a time because tHaTs RuNnInG. I don't remember what happened but I just remember one day I think I had enough. I refused to do whatever and ran to the side of the house and started screaming "child abuse" at the top of my lungs. Because I had hopped that someone would hear it and child protective services would finally take me away. Because this wasn't the first time I felt like that. My old neighbor one day mentioned it to me that he'd heard it and asked what it was about. And now that I think about it I must've been in 6th or 7th grade. I laughed it off I think and pawned it off as a joke of some sorts. People had heard it, I wonder why no on reacted.
- I remember when my dad promised me to go bowling and didn't take me. I didn't even like bowling, I could barely pickup any of the balls. But when I asked him about it later he'd said he didn't remember. I never felt so betrayed and when I pressed further he said he never made such claims. I learned that people forget, and as a result they disapoint. Humans are not flawless, be prepared.
- I remember when my mother came home and ripped up my Super Mario Galaxy Handbook because I hadn't finished my homework before reading it. I was where I am sitting now and she comes home and I don't remember the exact events but she just ripped it up and it tore me to shreds. This was when I used to wake up excited everyday to play a little bit of wii before school and on weekends. Galaxy was my main game at the time and I'd always sit in my tiny red chair and play while looking straight at our ginormous tv. Reading the handbook was my way of playing without playing. And she wanted me to read. She came home and tore it. Not in a show a strength but perhaps frustration. She had difficulty doing it and looking back at it now: she tried to tear the bindings first and and could barely do it so she resorted to just ripped out the pages one by one as I stood by crying and begging her to stop. I took that book everywhere (really just school and home lol). Later I found the book poorly taped together with scotch tape. Not a single word was said to me. My father would later give me a new one. I assume he was the one who taped it up. I still have the new one in my room and I could've sworn I saw the old one in the guest room but when I went to look for it it wasn't there. lol, just like how our family always was. Pretend like it never happened
- When my grandmother died I remembered thinking: lol why should I give a shit (not exactly but same idea). I remembered her as the lady who argued with my mom. I remember sitting in the living room watching the funeral service and getting bored. Why would I care about a random lady.
- I remember when my grandfather was still in America and he picked me up from elementary school. I had just made a cat in the hat hat out of paper. I was really happy for some reason and was just messing and running around on the walk home. Suddenly a gust of wind came and blew the hat out of my hands and I went around desperately chasing it as went down the sidewalk and neared the gutter. My heart was racing and I was so worried of it falling. I finally caught it. I looked at my grandfather. "Serves you right for being so rowdy." He's old now. And when he finally dies senile, "serves you right for being so old." lol
- I remember my sister calling me a brat, entitled, and saying that my parents were easier on me. Shed pull me by the hair and ear and pull me to dinner. One day when she did it I finally had enough. I had finally gotten tall enough to the point where I didn't need to stand for this physical bull shit. I grabbed her by the hair when she did mine and made sure she knew that. She was mad, and stormed off driving. This was when she was in high school I think.
- My mom used to force me to sleep with her for her naps. When I said I wasn't tired she said, "just don't move and you'll fall asleep". And I'd move and she'd yell at my for moving. She was right, not moving did help me fall sleep. (It also can cause sleep paralysis I later learned?). But I remember always waking up from the naps and feeling like I had wasted time. I wasnt tired and sleeping didn't change anything. One day enough was enough. I finally stormed out, locked myself in my room, grabbed like 200 dollars I had from gifts, took out the window screen and shimmied my way down and started running. With only socks. It hurt when I went over the prickly tree stuff. My mother pulled up in her van on the phone said "I found him" and followed me. I said I wanted to go to the orphanage by the taco bell. She told me it was a senior citizen home. I said I didn't care. She said she could take me to the rack bell and then drop me off after. So we went as a family to the taco bell and never talked about the incident. Again. And she never dropped me off. We drove by, and I sat there thinking. "I just need to stick through it. This is optimal. They have the resources"
- I remember my mother chasing me around the dinner table trying to spank me for something. I was crying and begging for help because my father and sister were right there. My dad tried to stop her, but in the way were one gives up if it doesn't work the first time. She caught me.
- I remember hitting my mom in the face as a baby. She said no and hit me in the face back.
- When I broke my femur as I was waiting for the ambulance I told her "don't stop them from giving me painkillers."
- When i needed antibiotics to treat the infection in my surgery area I remember hugging her around the waist like I used to willingly long ago. She was arguing with my sister about my antibiotics. She wanted to make sure I was getting the right one because I needed to switch between some since I was allergic. My sister was in school to become a pharmacist. She answered my mother's question, but perhaps not as confidently as my mother would've liked. They argued. I rergreted giving her that hug.
- I remember when my leg was just starting to heal up and I was off crutches. I was staying up late on my computer and this was when mother couldn't go to sleep when I wasn't asleep. borat voice very nice. She cried. My father came down and smashed my monitor, the one that we bought during black friday as costco on a family trip. I wasn't upset at the materialistic aspect, he's the fucking idiot who smashed the monitor he bought with his own money. I looked at him and walked out the door. Mother chased after me crying begging me to come home. I told her I couldn't feel anymore. My leg was sore because I was still in pt. I walked along the suburban streets until I reached out neighborhood hospital. There was a policeman. He stopped me and asked what happened. I said ... I don't know what I said. Maybe that they broke my shit, or that I was running away? Mother called father. He picked us up. I bought 2 of the same monitor (lol I had an uneven pair before) for a dual monitor setup, and when those came in I moved my computer to my room. They didn't let me do that before. Mother said "did you buy those monitors? Tell me next time." Its not that I didn't feel, I didn't feel my love for them. Only a few more years.
- I remember multiple occurrences of me threatening to run away. Mother would say "what would you take with you, I own everything you have." When I once finally started approaching the door she just kept saying whenever I reached for something "nope you can't take that that's mine". Even to the shoes.
- Oh yeah also mom told me and my sister if it weren't for the kids my parents wouldn't be together. Also my mom chucked a remote at my dad hard enough to break through the drywall. He had to duck. If he didn't...
There are no good memories. People say cherish the things you have because one day you won't have them anymore. Seems like a lazy way of saying be happy with what you have. Happiness is earned.
My parents cooked and cleaned for me. Why didn't they let me do it as chores when I asked them when I was younger. Is this some twisted stockholm syndrome. That if I feared doing these things myself I'd want them around more. It'd nice that I don't have to cook when I come home. And I get to see the dogs. That's about where the list ends.
Weed was my coping mechanism, a way to tell myself I loved my parents. Because when you're high you love everything. And I realized early on, before I even started smoking the high I got from wining video games would transfer into my daily life, so I could ignore the shitty things and focus on the mediocre and pretend like they were stellar. "There's kids in Africa..." "Poorer people exist". "Consider yourself lucky". Id ride the high of other things to ignore the past and tell myself these things to keep myself satisfied.
My emotions were never treated. I dealt with them as any first generation Asian-American would, I burred them. Bringing them up would be a mistake, everyone would always been defensive and how I actually deserved it. This was probably early on because I haven't confronted them since. As an adult I look back on how my philosophy has developed. Never forget these:
- Don't bother bringing things up. It's not worth the effort
- I'll never treat my kids like my parents treated me
- I want fame and fortune only to never contact or credit my parents (they'd always say "oh when we're old you'll take care of us")
The last one has died out, and the second one will always stand. But the first one I've been questioning. Where did this come from. I had mastered the usage of ambiguous grunts, muttered answers, and "i'll see" as non-answers to parents asking me about my day, food, whatever. It might've been in good faith, but I still found their existence to be burden. They were more legal guardians than parents. Recently when they once again triggered me my touching and throwing away my shit without asking (it was weed related. that better not change your perception much. idk i feel like it might. or specifically for when i was expressing my anger towards them) mother pinned it on me for not communicating. Yes i don't communicate. Because for some reason I believe its easier to not. Why? Well I theorize its because when I'd bring up my emotions as a child, "boys don't cry", "be man in asian dad accent
", "well you..." were all common responses. I think I realized it just wasn't worth it. It was easier to just look at a computer screen, laugh with my friends and pretend like they didn't exist.
Recently I was comparing Reddit account ages with my friends. I joined in 2013. I think that might've contributed to my jadedness. I knew anyone could lie on the internet, but what really differentiates realistic fiction from non-fiction. If you can't even tell the difference, isn't there something to be learned from either. Non-fiction would mean you learned from someone else's experience. Realistic fiction means you learned from someone else's interpretation of a fictional experience. At the end of the day you're still learning something. I remember reading AskReddit threads, I always found them interesting. It was like peering into other people's lives and getting their perspective. And a lot of times there would be topics of shitty parents. I'd always compare mine to theirs and be like "well at least mine care and didn't rape me/go to jail/starve me". But for the milder ones, "yeah i cut off connections and haven't talked to them in years" seemed common. I always figured I'd go that route.
This all started when my girlfriend and I broke up and I took a step back. I realized I was using her to fill the void of emotional intimacy's that I never had from my family. That coupled with society's liberal use of the word "love" and how its usage is elastic. When we were dating I always felt like things were moving a bit too fast, and that in reality we weren't a good fit for each other. I was an overthinker because facts don't care about your feelings, and that's the power of facts. She was a more reserved individual who loved her family dearly and treated them as actually beams of support. I was jealous, but primarily in awe of such a relationship. I wanted her to be the beams of emotional support that my parents never were for me, but understandably she didn't want to.
The thought of my parents death brings me no feeling. I've run it multiple times in the present and in the past. In the past the primary thought was, "who'd pay the bills and do all the parent things" I assumed it'd be my older sister, but the thought of responsibility was what shook me. And as college came closer and closer I realized that when my parents finally die it'd probably be in another state or country, doing my own thing because I share nothing in common with them besides their shitty genetics. Would I even go to the funeral. Probably because I'd seem like an ass if I didn't. But I always imagined myself giving a eulogy for my mother (she'd always say how she'd die first of the two) and say "I hated her for what she did to me and I wish she'd know how much pain she caused before she died." Kind of like the whole Bojack churro thing. I'll probably send this to them at some point. Maybe when I off myself.
I have friends, but I don't trust them. I don't even trust myself. The shifting of blame during discussions had forced me to become self-aware at a young age. At first I'd believe what they'd say, but I realized I had my own mind, and could think for myself. Everyone makes mistakes, and I honestly believe humans are naturally good, but even good humans make mistakes. Some refuse to admit it. This isn't a call to my parents, I think I've settled with the fact that they'll either support me or chalk this up to marijuana withdrawal or coronavirus. This goes beyond that. I want to be happy on my own. To be financially, emotionally, and physically independent. Social used to be in there to but I realize that parents are only around for about half your life, even less for others. The people you meet and the friends you make are what last. And I need to somehow figure out how to make that work, to get an emotionally intimate relationship with others. Maybe this is the first step. I'll figure that out on season two with my therapist i guess. lol.
irony is my only coping mechanism lol. give me karma. for my irl friends sup.
submitted by Mimerme
to AsianParentStories [link] [comments]
2020.11.26 02:20 FrontpageWatch2020 [#337+5154760] [Serious] In the Netherlands, disabled citizens are eligible to receive financial assistance when it comes to hiring sex workers, because sex is treated as a human right. What's your take on this, reddit? [r/AskReddit]
submitted by FrontpageWatch2020 to longtail [link] [comments]
2020.11.25 20:13 jvlima Qual é a piada que você costuma contar quando alguém te pede pra contar uma piada?
Vi um esse
post no AskReddit perguntando a mesma coisa, mas a maioria dos mais votado envolve trocadilhos que só funcionam em inglês. Eu sempre fico sem saber o que dizer e conto do pintinho explosivo.
submitted by jvlima
to brasil [link] [comments]
2020.11.25 19:08 Rei13th What do y'all think of Biderman's Chart of Coercion? [Repost cause I put the wrong PDF link last time]
Where do you recognise these ideas in today's society? Post thoughts in the comments, whatever it is that's on your mind, no matter what it's related to, nobody's gonna judge you (at least I'm not for sure) Here's PDF on this chart
I'll start just to set the ambience Humiliation and degradation
Makes resistance more 'costly' than compliance If you start thinking of most corrupt professions and occupations out there, you'd probably put lawyers near the top. Lawyers are usually labeled as expensive and also prone to fraud. Now, I read once in an AskReddit thread related to dirty marketing secrets about how this is a corporate myth made up so people would then avoid suing illegal business, thinking it's financially unefficient. Of course, lawyers cost money, and their job literally is to be sly, but thinking about this theory, I came to a conclusion that many people have more than one reason to sue a company, a bank, a person, yet they don't....and thus, corporations are growing greedier and greedier.
Okay, that was my thought, now it's your turn
submitted by Rei13th
to conspiracyNOPOL [link] [comments]
2020.11.24 16:14 cd-dvd Cheaters of reddit, how did the work-from-home situation affected the affair you were having? - 25,264 Votes on r/AskReddit
submitted by cd-dvd to 25k [link] [comments]
2020.11.24 12:09 pomolore We all know of this sub and r/2balkan4you but
Wouldn't a regular sub where humorous posts and semi serious posts can coexist (without the overly sarcastic tone of 2 balkan 4 you) and regular convo be good? The limitations of this one is that its an AskReddit and non question posts are not allowed
submitted by pomolore
to AskBalkans [link] [comments]
2020.11.24 02:10 L-V-4-2-6 This madlad in a "Cheaters of reddit, how did the work from home situation affect the affair you were having?" AskReddit thread.
2020.11.23 23:29 fern-fan Holy Moly! Thank you guys for alleviating my imposter syndrome!
I just found this subreddit today! After scrolling through the “best of” posts (especially the massive tips post from u/beatadhd
) I feel so affirmed. I found this sub thanks to a comment on an AskReddit from u/countertouristswin
and I can’t believe I hadn’t seen it before!! I’ve always felt like all my friends see it as “sweet you have study drugs” and never understand the “I litterally cannot start tasks” side of ADHD. Reading all your stories and comments has (for the first time ever) made me feel like not an imposter! Thank you all so much! (Sorry for any formatting I’m on mobile)
submitted by fern-fan
to ADHD [link] [comments]
2020.11.23 22:28 pajamakitten How do I know if this is really for me?
I saw a comment on an AskReddit thread a few days ago that summed me up perfectly and now some feelings I have not really had for years have resurfaced.
I spent years a teen questioning my gender, researching the trans community online and watching any documentary on trans people possible. Apparently this was not normal behaviour. It was basically something I was obsessed with and the idea of being a woman made me feel happier than being a guy ever did or has. I thought I could not be trans because I never experenced intense dysphoria like all the people in the documentaries I watched felt.
I have always liked women's clothing and felt jealous of the styles and materials used for them. I've also never really got off on the idea of being a man or in the man's role. There is still a nagging voice that asks if I am just making a bigger deal out of something like crossdressing. I have toyed with the idea of being non binary but that just does not satisfy me like the idea of being a woman does.
Any suggestions or similar experiences?
submitted by pajamakitten
to asktransgender [link] [comments]
2020.11.23 20:13 llehsadam Stworzyłem liste wszystkich polskich subredditów
No może nie mam tu wszystkich subredditów, ale długo szukałem (a search na reddicie nie działa najlepiej) i lista jest całkiem obszerna... może pomoże wam znaleźć coś nowego.
Niektóre subreddity są aktywne i stale rosną (/ksiazki
na przykład), niektóre wymagają odświeżenia (/polskihiphop
Dołączcie do paru, może uda się je odżywić.
Dodałem listę do wiki bo w sidebarze nie ma już miejsca. Link: https://www.reddit.com/Polska/wiki/subreddity
|Subreddit ||liczba użytkowników ||Opis |
|/Bydgoszcz ||737 ||Duże miasto w polsce |
|/Bytom ||452 ||Piękne miasto w Polsce |
|/Gdansk ||406 ||Ani zuchwale, ani bojaźliwie |
|/Krakow ||7 500 ||Co w Krakowie piszczy |
|/Lodz ||1 300 ||Z łódeczki łódź |
|/Polska ||200 000 ||Jesteś tutaj |
|/Poznan ||908 ||Jedyne miasto wymienione w hymnie Polski TIL |
|/Szczecin ||253 ||Szczecin jest otwarty |
|/Trojmiasto ||128 ||Gdańsk, Gdynia i Sopot |
|Warsaw ||8 380 ||Stolica |
|/Wroclaw ||1 719 ||Miasto spotkań |
Gry, seriale i literatura
Kultura internetowa ... Memy
|Subreddit ||liczba użytkowników ||Opis |
|/WroclawNSFW ||906 ||Wrocław NSFW |
Tutaj trafiają wszystkie nieaktywne subreddity lub subreddity z <50 użytkowników.
submitted by llehsadam
to Polska [link] [comments]
2020.11.23 17:00 AutoModerator Happy Cakeday, r/askred! Today you're 7
Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year. Your top 10 posts:
submitted by AutoModerator
to askred [link] [comments]
2020.11.23 08:59 warriorsatthedisco [TOMT] [Reddit comment] highly upvoted Askreddit comment about a guy seeing Lord of the Rings and is trying to hold his pee in until the movie is over, which has multiple "fakeout" endings.
It was this HILARIOUS comment at least 3 years old, had tons of upvotes. They were seeing Return of the King in theaters for the first time, and he has to pee by the time Frodo and Sam get to mount doom. He figures they're at the climax, he can hold it a little while longer, then they throw the ring in. He's about to get up and then the eagles come rescue Frodo and Sam and OP is like "ok, I'll wait for them to reunite then the movie will be over". And then there is the Aragorn crowning scene after that and OP says something like "well I guess its called the return of the King, I'm about to piss myself but I can hold it a little longer" and etc etc through LOTR's like 45 minute ending. I tried googling it to no avail but I know it was a top level comment on the thread.
submitted by warriorsatthedisco
to tipofmytongue [link] [comments]
2020.11.23 01:10 GlassPrunes What is the best way to interact online with people who watch far-right content?
There was a recent AskReddit thread about what YT channels people watch. A few of the people said things like Paul Joseph Watson and Sargon. Do you guys have certain way you approach such people? Do you ignore them? What do you think is the best course of action, and does it even matter?
submitted by GlassPrunes
to Anarchy101 [link] [comments]
2020.11.23 00:40 ihavenoideatoo How many male Kpop fans there are?
And I mean here, on Reddit. Cuz for the last couple of days I've seen at least two posts in which OPs said that they are male, so I got interested. But what's funny, usually when I see some post on this subreddit, or on UKO or askreddit, I imagine a male writing it lol, and I don't know why. But don't get me wrong, I love seeing that, cuz Kpop is just another genre of music, not something that is meant for girls and girls only, but for any one to enjoy it, no matter if they are fanboys or just casual listener.
So, if you are male and you're reading this, share your story of how you got into Kpop and if anyone from your surrounding knows about it, I mean if you want ofc, I'm really curious.
submitted by ihavenoideatoo
to kpopthoughts [link] [comments]
2020.11.22 20:50 Yellowapplejam 29 [F4R] PST I've been up since 5:30am but haven't gotten anything done
We had an update last night and some things didn't get transferred over. I've been up since 5:30am but can't really do anything because I'm waiting for an offshore team to fix something. Hence, my post here.
I've been talking to someone but he doesn't see me as more than a friend--his loss though, I'm a catch (lol just kidding, if I were such a catch why am I still single). I mention this because I've been rethinking my approach of only talking to one person at a time so if we end up talking, assume I'm talking to other people too (unless we agree not to). I'll assume the same about you. I guess nobody likes being asked every day how their day was.
Some things on my mind right now:
- Work (see above)
- Moving residence (Sell the house and buy a new one? Sell the house and rent? Don't sell the house? Should you bring a realtor when you shop for houses? Seriously, if you're a realtor, hit me up, I would love to talk to you.)
- Taskmaster (I found out about this show from an AskReddit thread and have been watching 1 - 2 episodes a day. I don't want to binge watch it because I don't want to run out of stuff to watch)
What I'm looking for: someone pragmatic but not greedy, someone kind, an adventure buddy (post-COVID), a goal buddy (been wanting to properly learn Chinese--traditional, not simplified--but I don't know where to start), a cuddle buddy, someone to bounce ideas off of, someone who thinks masks should be mandated but can argue why masks shouldn't be mandated. I think the truest form of love is helping the other person become the best version of themselves.
Currently reading: Vagabonds by Hao Jing Fang
Fun fact: in one of my old jobs, we got a new director one day and she asked me to explain what my job duties were. The whole process wasn't straightforward so I tried to explain how the system worked but I didn't do a good job because she stopped me and told me I had no idea what I was doing (on her first week in her role). My manager got pissed and I cried when I got home. She stopped giving me a hard time eventually after I had to do a demo on the spot for the director of the other group.
Photos: I don't like posting photos of myself on imgur or some other public site but I'll send you a picture if we move to another messaging service.
Misc: been wanting to get Factorio but I can't justify paying $30 for it. While I generally dislike enablers, someone enable me.
What else?: Looking to be eventually monogamous but you're not feeling it, I don't mind just being friends. I'm not looking to have children (not entirely against it but I won't be sad if I never have children) so it's not a race against the clock or anything. I'm able to pay my bills as well so I don't need anyone to support me. In other words, if I never find a partner, no big deal. Hope you have a good day!
submitted by Yellowapplejam
to ForeverAloneDating [link] [comments]
2020.11.22 14:36 Infinite_Moment_ A lot of mods in this place are absolute spineless, dickless fucking dogshit authoritarian sacks of fuck who hide behind anonymity.
So yesterday I posted this question on askreddit: JFK said: We choose to go to the Moon...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard - Which challenge would you like to see chosen in this decade?
Then suddenly it all stops fucking dead and I get some messages asking me where the hell my thread has gone, that it was an interesting post (one of my first interesting posts), that they don't understand what happened.
So I, being the dutiful and curious good citizen that I am, message the
moderators and get
It breaks rule 1 because the quote isn’t necessary to the question. You can resubmit without the quote. Cheers
With 1200+ now fucking useless and utterly uninteresting fucking messages still sitting in my damn inbox.
So I can only get rid of these wastes of inbox space that will never lead to any meaningful discussion because those weak goosestepping empty wankers decided that a post with 3000+ messages violates the rules like Genghis Khan violated Baghdad - by clicking on my inbox and going out of my inbox again, then clicking on my inbox and going out again. 30 messages at a time.
Those cretins are ignoring me now, my posts are no longer showing, all because those pathetic weak anonymous sacks of ballsweat didn't have the balls to post a comment or give any reason publicly.
What the actual fuck is going on with moderation in this place? Is this normal? Am I to be punished for speaking up against this hollow travesty and power abuse and superior attitude, simply because I'm an adult using angry adult words against other weak pyjama wearing hollow shells of human beings who can't take angry words but can only deal out retribution from their lofty tower so long as nobody knows?
Where's the accountability for shitty behaviour? Sure there's accountability when I open my mouth but not for those arrogant condescending parasites?
Fuck this shit and fuck those cowards.
submitted by Infinite_Moment_
to TrueOffMyChest [link] [comments]
2020.11.22 11:41 StarChild413 Anyone else kinda "triggered" (quotes because some people see it as a clinical term) by all this 2020 doomshittery?
It's not just how long it's lasted that's getting to me but how prevalent it's gotten and how cynical it's made people get
Some triggering examples
- People doing this about not just bad things but anything remotely weird that could be interpreted as negative is now somehow a sign of "2020 apocalypse" (from a lunar eclipse on the 4th Of July (far too new a holiday for it to have any "ancient power significance") to the need to invoke the 3rd Amendment in a Supreme Court case to the idea of (if the right people died from the pandemic in the right order) President Chuck Grassley)
- this doomer attitude even leaking into something as legit-compared-to-Reddit as a Gizmodo article and not only that but one on one of the aforementioned sort of "weird but interpretable as bad so somehow apocalypse" things (that whole tiff Epic Games had with Apple about Fortnite on the App Store or whatever)
- My mom saying things about 2020 in ways that make me unsure if she's joking or not like I knew she was joking when she started calling pre-quarantine times "the Before Times" because she heard Colbert do that on one of his monologues but when she started making jokes about things like "not committing to 2021 without seeing the trailer first" that started making the part of my aspie INFP 6 brain that still uses kid logic wonder if 2020 was so weird it somehow made 2021 have a trailer we watch from some year-less limbo
- The fact that even people who say 2020 is not explicitly a bad year just a year where anything can happen still never list any good examples (like why is it always aliens or zombies or December 32nd that could happen and never, like, benevolent aliens giving us warp drive ahead of schedule or Musk finally building that flying metal suit or whatever) proving they don't really believe it's a year where anything can happen at all
- People being so edgy on Askreddit that they do things like say 2020 should be renamed "Murphy" because "anything that can go wrong did go wrong" (even though none of that is how anything works) or ask what 2020 would come to mean in the dictionary or treat either 2020 (and potentially even December 31st, 2020) going on forever and/or us dying at the end (hey, nothing said eternal 2020 couldn't be some kind of meta-hell) as if it's a given
- Someone who not only was trying to make an argument for why certain people would try to get pedophilia legalized citing gay marriage as a precedent but had as one of their pieces of evidence how much bright futuristic promise 2020 had until SHTF and "if there was a year pedophilia had to get legalized..."
- Multiple people making it sound like because we didn't adapt and fight it immediately or whatever and people still refuse to wear masks, that somehow proves all movies where people unite to fight a disaster or whatever (from disaster movies to even zombie movies) are inaccurate and should just show everyone being stupid until they die (in a tone that indicates they might as well also think all happy endings that don't involve an antihero rising to the top on greed and irresponsibility are inaccurate)
So how do I deal other than fixing the year in what time we have left (as I know that's unlikely, at least to do so to their satisfaction)
submitted by StarChild413
to infp [link] [comments]
2020.11.22 05:11 Toloplot [TOMT][REDDIT COMMENT] "Thank"
Hello, I'm looking for a reddit comment that was posted on what I believe was a AskReddit post about brainfarts or something. The comment was one of the most upvoted it had some rewards. My recollection of it is about OP being at church and someone telling him : "How are you ?" And OP answering "Thank". The post was must be 2 to 3 years old. I can't find it anymore. I need help please Thanks !
submitted by Toloplot
to tipofmytongue [link] [comments]