NeuroTypical

Laughing is also an acceptable response.

I'm seeing things changing in politics, geopolitics, technology, and culture. Maybe more. For the first two, I am reminded about the "Arab Spring" in 2011 when there were numerous populist revolts in various Arab countries against those country's leaders, some regimes fell, and many others were forced to change a bit. Around 60,000 people killed by the time they were all done. Similar uprisings and protests are happening here in the world's democracies, and fortunately playing out with only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the violence and killing. Today is the 'national boycott day when we stick it to Amazon for dumping DEI', for example. AI will be changing things so my grandkids will live in a world as different from mine, as my world is as different from the 1890's. Culture is seeing a global shift to the right, as people who were blindsided by DEI and radical gender theory and violence done in the name of race, found their voice and are now fighting back. The end of Facebook and Twitter taking censorship marching orders from the FBI fueled the free speech necessary to combat the rising left-wing authoritarianism. It needs to shift more, as there's still plenty of cultural elements out there thinking assassinating our nation's president or a CEO of a healthcare company is a good/laudable/supportable thing. I see this as just another pendulum move humans do on a 20-30 year cycle. I mean, it would be nice if the last days are here in 2025, but it would surprise me. We're psyched about the announced temple arriving in our city in the next 2-5 years, and I look forward to making increased attendance a part of my upcoming retired life next decade. And I'm still advising my kiddos to contribute to their 401ks early in their working life, so they can take care of themselves in 50 years when they retire.

Me: "The last one involves a weapon and stopping the threat as quickly as possible." You: "This seems reasonable to me except for the last one. You are actually a large guy compared to me. You have no idea how easy it is for a larger guy with no fight training (who is simply determined) to disable a guy my size." Me: "I'm totally missing your issue with the last item. The old adage doesn't go "never bring a knife to a gunfight, but bringing a large guy is just fine", does it?"" You: "OK, my turn to be confused. The "last item" was spending time at the range. What does that have to do with "bringing a large guy"?" I gave a list of 100 things I think about self defense. #100, the last item on the list, is employing a weapon to stop an impending threat of grievous bodily harm, when none of the other items on my list will work. #99 is fighting back empty handed, or with something unlikely to cause serious harm. So, you took issue with #100, and talked about how big people are better than they know at winning a physical fight against a smaller opponent. I am missing your point. #100 is when solving things physically isn't an option. An example would be a scrawny 16 yr old 105 lb gang banger wannabe with a gun showing up to kill someone in my house in order to gain the respect of his gang. He's got his gun out and is getting ready to shoot me and/or mine. Me being big won't help me in that situation. That's why #100 is on the list. Does that resolve your confusion?

Uh-oh - just got an email from my wife, asking me to send her 5 things I did for her last week. Honestly, with all the legitimate things to gripe about that Trump is doing, this one doesn't really make sense. For folks who get all worked up about the email request, a minute and a half of your time please:

I'm totally missing your issue with the last item. The old adage doesn't go "never bring a knife to a gunfight, but bringing a large guy is just fine", does it?

In our family, we are not prey. The advice in this image is directed at the bird.

Admirable blend. Did you know the next season of P&F is dropping even as we speak?

I've spent 25+ years discussing religion with folks online. I was part of the amateur apologetics wave of the 2000-2010's that pretty much ended the antimormon book publishing and speaker-fee-generating industry. The only things that are even close to being successful, are a genuine dedication to open transparency, a willingness to learn and grow in opinions, and a willing commitment to loving my neighbor even if he hates/fears/distrusts/attacks me. I've made maybe a dozen or two actual impacts on folks' thinking, all of them by just responding honestly and lovingly to criticisms and issues. Never really trying to persuade, or win. That's online. In real life, I do not seek to talk to anyone about the Gospel and BoM. I will, however, answer questions like "are you doing anything fun this weekend" and "got any plans". When I think about 'successful', I don't think about people getting baptized. I think about it as representing myself and my faith in a transparently honest light, to people who are either wary or critical, or honestly couldn't care less. Folks who tend to get defensive or anxious when talk of religion comes up. Or go on the offensive when anything LDSocentric is mentioned. So from that perspective, I try to talk in terms those folks would find relatable. Lighthearted, self effacing humor tends to go a long way. "How was your weekend?" "Well, us crazy Mormons think it's fun to go to church 5 times across 2 days twice a year, for a total of 10 hours total. So I had a blast!" 90% of any successes I've had, came by by learning LGBT lingo, evangelical/atheist beliefs, and church criticisms, and then expressing common ground and agreement and empathy and understanding whenever possible. I think humans in general are more open and willing to listen to the other side of the story, when they're talking to someone who doesn't get defensive or shut down or fight back when crap gets brought up. These folks come to me when they've got a question or a pain, and then I talk gospel. That's when the missionary work happens - when they invite it in. And, in real life, I've had the honor and privilege of baptizing both my kiddos, and participating or attending in half a dozen others.

I admit, seeing the song show up on our list of approved hymns, with a vocal arrangement sung by the primary kiddos, surprised the heck out of me. I've been trying to put into words why, but I've failed so far. So yeah, @Emmanuel Goldstein and @HaggisShuu - can you put into words why the negative reaction? Do you see the hymn as injecting our worship or theology or belief with abominable creeds that destroy the teachings of peace? Or am I reading into what you wrote? Please - do what I'm failing to do - put into words why the discomfort. If you do think it's infecting our church with creedal nonsense, could you point to where? This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine. This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine. This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine. Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine! Everywhere I go, I'm gonna let it shine. Everywhere I go, I'm gonna let it shine. Everywhere I go, I'm gonna let it shine. Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine! Jesus gave it to me, I'm gonna let it shine. Jesus gave it to me, I'm gonna let it shine. Jesus gave it to me, I'm gonna let it shine. Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine! The more I think about it, the less I can explain my discomfort.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a problem with the words, or meaning, or implied beliefs, or the culture normally associated with the song, or what? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/music/songs/this-little-light-of-mine-release-3?crumbs=hymns-for-home-and-church&lang=eng (btw - there's a thread about it here: )

Like this?

What's your source for that claim? What is your understanding of what an "SS investigator" looks like, and what going out to investigate looks like? Here's what the report says about recovering: But again, recovery is only part of it. The report talks about the need to make changes and improvements so more improper payments can be detected in the first place. It talks about how systems are put in place to "help detect" improper payments, and it talks about how those systems need to be improved. Sometimes the process to detect doesn't even exist - it talks about that on page 34. Random audits of a tiny sample of payments always discover unflagged, undetected improper payments where nobody was sent out to investigate. It also mentions that for every improper payment they actually do discover, SSA thinks it costs them $.08 for every dollar collected to get the dollar back. So for that $71.8 billion of improper payments they actually discovered, they had to spend almost six billion dollars to correct the error. I'm not satisfied with an explanation about why waste happens, I want the waste reduced. Eliminated if possible. I'm hopeful that DOGE isn't just accepting explanations about how problems only happen occasionally or rarely. As the report notes: "SSA issues over $1 trillion in benefit payments annually. Even the slightest error in the overall payment process can result in billions of dollars in improper payments."

Absolutely. And then it's your solemn duty to convert them all to Glockhood for that last one.

Just clicking like so I can see mine by mousing over the thumbs up I left on your post.

I raised my kiddos to think about things like this: When we think about danger and staying safe, we practice 100 things. - 80 ways to 'not be there in the first place'. We live in safe areas, go safe places, don't make ourselves targets of opportunity. - 15 ways to 'run the other way'. Leave situations. End conversations and walk away. Take a different route. - 3 ways to hide. Become invisible. Get behind a locked door. Disappear into a crowd. Go into a police station. - 2 ways to fight back. Krav Maga and sticks and mace and pressure points are the first one. The last one involves a weapon and stopping the threat as quickly as possible. So if you ever come to me and say you had to hurt someone to escape danger, you should come ready to explain why the 99 other things we always practice didn't work.

Yeah, Trump was also claiming all the obviously-incorrect SSN accounts were being paid. There's an awful lot of sensational fake news flying around on the topic right now. A lot of pent-up frustration and backlash against the last 6 years of woke mindvirus getting vented out in the open right now.

Something to note, the govt isn't exactly clueless about waste/fraud/abuse happening in it's spending. From a WSJ article: Every year, agency reports posted online document billions in improper payments, which include fraud but also underpayments, duplicate payments, payments to ineligible recipients or for ineligible goods or services. According to the Government Accountability Office, they can also include correctly paid amounts that didn’t follow regulations, such as a contract missing a required signature. As far back as 2002, Congress required agencies to estimate and report improper payments each year. The law was strengthened in 2010, 2013 and 2020, on the eve of the pandemic. The estimates come from statistical samples of payments that agencies check in detail, using methods approved by the independent inspector general for each agency.

In the eyes of the law, I'd say no. Through the viewpoint of actual negative impacts like emotional or trauma, I'd say maybe? On average yes? I read a statistic years ago about the percentage of rape victims who experienced major diagnosable psychological harm like PTSD or major depression. Women had those in far higher percentages than men. This was like 30 years ago, I don't remember how the data was gathered or what the biases or agendas were from the folks reporting the statistics, but it seemed reasonable at the time. The WWII vets and their notions of "tough it out, buttercup" were still dominant in the culture, and there was a bias against men needing help with mental health at the time. So I dunno.

Muppets have not escaped unscathed from the cultural shifts of the last 6 years, what with trans crossdressing Gonzo in the muppet baby cartoon and whatnot. But overall they've weathered such things perhaps better than most such franchises.

There is no indication that any of these obviously erroneous accounts are receiving checks. They just exist in the system as active SSA accounts. That said, last July there was a report issued by the office of the inspector general: "from FYs 2015 through 2022, SSA paid almost $8.6 trillion in benefits and made approximately $71.8 billion (0.84 percent) in improper payments, most of which were overpayments." One wonders how much of that $71.8b went to dead folks' accounts and involved fraud. ($71.8 billion bucks is around five hundred bucks for every US taxpayer, btw.)

I've noticed, and I've been semi-embarrassed, as I reflect on my participation on this forum and how about 80% of it has involved political discussions. I admit to being excited about Trump and Doge, and this forum is one of the places I can express it. Any accusation that I'm somehow worshipping the guy is just nonserious. But yeah, I should be mormoning here more than I'm politicking.

Reminds me of a comment my daughter's MMA instructor made. He observed that my kiddo was totally relaxed and smiling and friendly during the sparring, and said "these are the beasts you've gotta watch out for".

Yep, Mirk's video. - Yes, the woman was aggressing towards the female driver of the car. Dude wasn't just defending himself, but the female driver as well. \ - No, the woman doesn't "turn away". She is punched backwards. There is no indication given that she's done attacking. Dude is totally justified. Afterwards, the aggressor lady actually owned up to the altercation on social media, and commented on the video. Someone asked her "did you learn your lesson?", and she answered in the affirmative. My local small-town police chief tells the story about the only time he had ever been injured by a suspect in handcuffs. It was a 15 yr old girl. He had the cuffs on her and was firmly escorting her by the arm to his squad car. She used his arm as leverage to lift her ~80 lbs person up into the air, where she brought her entire weight down with her heel into his knee. He said he had a period of recuperation before returning to duty - I forget how many months.

I've seen the video prompting these questions. Wasn't the man with a female, and the aggressor woman started by making threatening advances towards the female? In general, my thinking is once there's a clear threat, you don't stop reacting until there is no more threat. So that added suplex between #2 and 3 could absolutely be warranted, unless the woman is clearly retreating. Endless ways for a threat to temporarily increase distance while planning the next attack.