Happened with Lone Echo for me. It’s a VR game where you’re in a space station, and you move around in zero g by just grabbing your surroundings and pulling yourself along or pushing yourself off of them. I started reflexively attempting to do that in real life for a bit after longer sessions
where anyone thinks it’s ok or normal to recommend suicide to people
Except that’s already happening even without it being normalized, there have always been assholes that are gonna tell people to kill themselves, especially if they’ve never seen the person they’re talking to before. I don’t see how this is any different.
Literally the whole thing would not have happened without the policy.
It also wouldn’t have happened if a fucked up system wasn’t withholding actual, reasonable alternatives that the person was clearly asking for. That’s my point. Let’s fix the actual problems, rather than try to silence the symptoms.
…and did you notice how everyone was outraged by that? That incident was not an issue with assisted suicide being available, that was an issue with fucked up systems withholding existing alternatives and a tone-deaf case worker (who is not a doctor) handling impersonal communications. Maybe it’s also an issue with this kind of thing being able to be decided by a government worker instead of medical and psychological professionals. But definitely nothing about this would have been made better by assisted suicide not being generally available for people who legitimately want it, except the actual problem wouldn’t have been put into the spotlight like this.
I don’t want to create a future where, “I’ve tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit,” is met with a polite and friendly, “Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?”
Are you for real? This kind of thing is a last resort that nobody is going to just outright suggest unprompted to a suffering person, unless that person asks for it themselves. No matter how “normalized” suicide might become, it’s never gonna be something doctors will want to recommend. That’s just… Why would you even think that’s what’s gonna happen
Except the email in question is not a newsletter. Companies often use separate mail list services for important product announcements and similar things as well. Obviously there should be a process in place that removes you from these external services too when you delete your account, but I assume this is what broke down in this case
And science fiction somehow can’t be fascist?
why the hell is this particular label a whole goddamn spectrum that I have to pull out a chart to explain??
I’m sorry that humans and human sexuality are complicated, I guess? Asexuality is just a little bit different in that there’s significant spread in sex-favorability, which just is not the case as much with the other orientations. Again, if you really want the label all for yourself, please tell what label sex-favorable aces should use instead in your opinion, I’m genuinely curious.
But also, I still don’t see how just a quick addition of “and sex-repulsed” is that much harder. It is literally three words. If the other person doesn’t respect that, that likely wouldn’t have been any different with a shorter label.
What’s wrong with just saying “I don’t want sex” or “I’m sex repulsed”? You make it sound like that’s unsafe in some way, and I don’t understand why, so I feel like I’m missing something here.
Nobody wants to take anything away from you. Sex-favorable people who don’t experience sexual attraction just also want to have a label for themselves. If they’re not allowed to call themselves asexual, what do you propose they call themselves instead? Graysexual would be wrong since that would mean experiencing sexual attraction to some degree at least some of the time.
take the word “asexual” and say “Yes asexual people still want sex!”
Yeah but nobody is doing that. More accurate would be “Asexual people might still want sex, if it’s important to you, please ask (appropriately)”.
If you want “asexual” to exclusively mean people who feel no sexual attraction and are sex-repulsed, then what would you propose people who experience no sexual attraction who are still sex-favorable or sex-neutral should call themselves? Like, I’m sympathetic to your frustration, but they also deserve a label
we’re after a way to clearly communicate no.
There is, it’s saying “I don’t want sex” or “I’m sex repulsed”. It’s even better because anyone can use that regardless of their sexual attraction, even.
This is like saying “yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they’re not attracted to them. They’re still gay! It’s only a name!”
Well… That’s correct, though. It might be a little easier to see if you consider the stereotype of male-on-male sex in prisons or militaries. Or, to keep closer to your example, a homosexual man having sex with a woman just to see what it’s like. Or because he’s closeted and trying to conform to social pressure. There are lots of reasons to have sex with someone, and having sex with people of a particular gender does not necessarily determine your sexuality, if sexual attraction is not one of them. I mean, sure, a gay man having sex with lots of women for apparently no other reason than that he likes it might be a little sus, but, like, you might just not know what’s going on.
The amount of times I’ve been asked if I’m “one of those asexuals who have sex” is gross.
I agree that that’s gross. But not because it implies that it’s valid for asexuals to like sex. It’s gross because that is a weirdly intimate detail to just ask casually about, regardless of your sexuality.
because it apparently includes everybody.
No. Only those who don’t feel sexual attraction towards others. Regardless of whether they like having sex or not.
I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore
If the “not having sex” part is important to you, what’s wrong with identifying as “sex-repulsed asexual” instead of just “asexual”? Sounds like that would already solve your problem
If you label a relationship as platonic, that usually serves to make it explicit that there’s no romance or sex going on, yes.
When talking about attraction though, we’re in the context of the split attraction model (look that up if you’re interested), and there, platonic attraction is treated not as the opposite of sexual attraction, but as its own axis for basically saying “how much do I want this person to be my friend”, without saying anything about how much you’re sexually attracted to the person.
If you want to properly reconcile the terms, think about it like this - a sexual/romantic relationship is one where the sexual/romantic attraction between the partners is the strongest force, whereas a platonic relationship is one where their platonic attraction is the strongest force.
I personally actually have a hard time seeing platonic and romantic attraction as separate axes, for me, romantic attraction just feels like an extension, a stronger form of platonic attraction.
I can get behind that
Ohh the “what time is it in films” argument is good, haven’t heard that one before, thanks
It’s gonna get much worse when you start to try mapping days of the week onto the new times. Are days gonna be the same everywhere as well, to stay from 0 to 24? If so, have fun saying things like “Let’s find a time on Wednesday/Thursday”. People likely couldn’t be bothered and would probably just use the day that their normal wake-up time falls on to mean the full solar day instead. At which point you could also just say okay, weekdays are still following local solar days. But now what weekday is it halfway around the world? Now you need to look up their solar day.
All this to say - abolishing time zones will introduce the reverse problem for every problem that it seemingly solves. You can’t change the fact that our planet rotates and people in different locations will follow different schedules. Turning the lookup-table upside down is just a cosmetic change that doesn’t remove the situation that’s causing the confusion. I’d rather just stick with the set of problems that we’re already used to dealing with.
You’re thinking of Edge, not Internet explorer
Interesting, that seems kinda unsafe to me. The one I checked was Ryanair, they fully prohibit batteries in checked luggage
That’s only for cabin luggage. In checked luggage, Lithium Ion batteries are completely banned. If a battery bursts into flames in the cabin, it can be handled with hopefully minimal damage. You do not want that to happen in the belly of the plane packed in closely between everyone else’s luggage with no way of getting it contained until the planes lands.
Are you seriously equating security software running on business systems with state violence / surveillance on people? Those two things are not even remotely comparable, starting with business systems not being people that have rights