There is something to be said for having friends that refuse to make choices because "I really don't care." I hang out with a person like this, and it means I have to always take more of an emotional load in our friendship making the decisions. It kinda sucks to always be the one that has to make the executive decisions. It's nice sometimes to do what someone else wants to do.

"What's up, what do we want to do?"

"I'm easy."

"Nah, I picked last time, your turn. What are we up to?" (And the last several times)

"I'm down for whatever really."

"Come on, pick something!"

"I really don't care, I'm good with whatever."

What I want to say: "JESUS FUCKING CHRIST PLEASE JUST MAKE A DECISION FOR ONCE PLEASE I AM TIRED OF THE BURDEN"

What I actually say: "Aight whatever let's just [insert activity]" or, optionally "I'm pretty tired of picking. Do either of these options sound good?"

Don't push off your executive functions in relationships onto others all the time! It's a give and take, and everyone has different limits. It's nearly as bad, in my opinion, as dictating the relationship to force someone else to do it. Now, I wouldn't yell at someone, no matter how frustrated they make me, but I do communicate when I'm running out of executive function battery for the group, and ask someone else to step up. I just wish they'd take it up on their own initiative sometimes.

I totally get that, but there's a big difference between "this guy did a Nazi salute" or "this guy idolized Hitler" and "this guy worked with anti-semites." I don't think we should be using the word Nazi to mean "racist person," as Nazi is pretty specific. I certainly hope I don't come across as making any of the above arguments. Ford was a Nazi. Elon is a Nazi. I haven't seen evidence suggesting Disney is the same, and I think it would be irresponsible to turn Nazi into a generic pejorative for "bigot."

Fig 53: Risk of Rain's "Huntress" has eyes perfectly positioned to gauge the velocity of arrows she fires.

Half of Europe would be considered "far left" from a US perspective. Affordable housing? Universal healthcare? Parental leave for long durations? Walkable cities and public transit? Try getting any of those to fly with the US neoliberals.

How does debate about women's sports (in my opinion, an overblown and distracting issue to cover for more serious anti-trans sentiment and legislation, when it affects a handful of people) and children's medicine (a non-issue, trans children cannot transition and puberty blockers are proven to be safe and effective, frequently used by cis children going through early puberty, and non-damaging long term if a child later decides to resume the natural course of surgery, whereas allowing puberty to continue IS permanently damaging) come into conflict with feminism? What do you even think feminism is? TERF isn't a derogatory term, it's a self-assigned label that has come into hot water more recently for being bigoted. I'm not pretending that debate on those subjects is silly. It's very serious. These subjects are frequently used as excuses to pass further and further restrictions on people living entirely outside the scope of said subjects. What I'm asking you is where feminism comes into play?

Seriously. You can't just state feminism as the opposite side of the debate against trans people. That's insane. Feminists support equality of all genders. Feminists believe trans women are women, and their rights should be protected. Go to any feminist rally, and see how many trans flags are there. You're conflating the belief in gender equality with the belief in "protecting women from trans women." I'm not stifling discussion. I'm questioning the appropriation of progressive ideals to turn progressives against each other, which, whether intentional or not, you're contributing to. It's like saying you see both sides of the issue between immigrants and crime victims.

As a feminist, who participates in local organizations, and reads theory, don't appropriate the ideas of gender equality to oppose those that most need its support.

I'm glad you've decided for everyone. Many thanks, language dictator.

You're so very wrong about that. The chemicals used right now for lethal injection fail often, cause undue pain and distress, and often will paralyze you instead of killing you quickly while you slowly suffocate, unable to call for help. Nitrogen has no downsides. This isn't a "techbro" solution. It's a humane one. A guillotine was kinder to the one dying than the current method.

The current method prioritizes minimizing violence and maximizing comfort for spectators over being humane to the one dying. The only reason there is a paralytic in the chemical slurry is because the sleep and lethal chemicals sometimes fail spectacularly and the patient spasms painfully as they die. Their solution wasn't to change the method to be more humane, it was to paralyze them so they don't spasm. They're still in pain. They're still dying slowly. They're still scared. But we don't have to see it, so it's okay.

Nitrogen euthanasia is safe and humane, killing entirely painlessly. For some reason the fact that it's a gas, even an inert one, makes people crazy.

I don't have a dog in this race, but it seems to me the obvious answer to your consent dilemma is "no animal consents to being eaten." I feed my cat a non-vegan diet, for the record. I'm just not pretending that the fish likes it or anything. If a perfectly healthy vegan diet is possible for a cat, which I'm honestly not clear on, then it's definitely ethical to do so.

If you extrapolated the moral dilemma to the extreme, it would be like saying "it's unethical to take the knife away from that serial murderer. He just wants to murder and he didn't consent to stopping!" Obviously, that's a ridiculous comparison, but so is making the consent argument. My point isn't that feeding cats meat is wrong (again, I feed my cat meat), it's that making a consent argument against veganism is silly.

Do you think the first long truck sprang into existence in 2008? We've had super long trucks for specific use cases as long as we've had trucks. This is like one of the few times a person has a good reason to have a large vehicle, and is being safe and polite about it by staying out of the way and writing a polite note to explain. Large vehicles aren't the problem, people owning large vehicles who don't need them are the problem.

Or much much longer. It's not going anywhere. It can't escape its cask, and outside human intervention the casks won't be breached. It's just locked-up metal that gives off some radiation, fully contained within the cask. It isn't oozing green goo.

What? Cognitive behavioral therapy is not for the mentally handicapped. It's for anyone.

That's the nice thing about federation, you don't have to interact. If you don't like how a community is run, don't participate in it, or even defederate.