I basically fell into my life choices and they’ve worked out remarkably well for me. I intended, upon leaving high school, to get a music education degree and become a high school band teacher. Then due to budget reasons (and an unwillingness to take out $50-80k in loans) and having to work full time to support myself, I ended up taking a break from school (after taking 5 years to get my Associates Degree). I moved to the opposite side of the country on a whim, and after a year and a half at a truly miserable call center job, my friend suggested the Coast Guard. So I talked to a recruiter and got a report date.

Around the same time, I met a woman in my area (back before online dating was the tragic mess it currently is) while just looking for people to do things with, since I moved across the country knowing nobody. We got along, but nothing kicked off until I told her I was joining the military (leaving), we both expressed how interested we were in each other, and became a couple.

I’ll spare you the longer story, but ended up proposing during “off-base liberty” in boot camp (generally speaking DO NOT RECOMMEND) because I was moving halfway across the country, and, per my proposal, “neither of us have anything, you just lost your job, and the way we both are, even if it’s bad we’ll stick it out for a year. And if you ever want to go back, we’ll buy you a plane ticket, split what we have, and you’re no worse off than you are now.” We ended up getting along amazingly.

And I was worried about joining the military (which I was doing for the GI Bill so I could finish school then become a band teacher), but the job I’ve been doing is WAY better than being a band teacher, and I’m currently buying a house (for the second time) and getting set to retire somewhere amazing. At 46.

My life is considerably better than anything I might have planned, because I went along with the opportunities that came up. I think OP failed task successfully.

Thank you for this. It seems more in keeping with the original idea of the US, a federation of states.

Can you give some examples of how that works? Like, who pays for roads, who handles environmental regulations (or are there any), who establishes education standards (or are there any), etc. I’m not trying to argue, it just seems like on the internet people referring to “state authoritarianism” and “central government tyranny” ranges from “adults can’t be transgender” to “I have to pay taxes and the government won’t let me own slaves.”

I have had a number of conversations with relatively reasonable conservatives, where I’ve brought up the dangers of so many jobs moving toward automation with no additional job creation. And steering the conversation carefully, I got them to at least consider the idea of UBI funded by taxing any and all automation. I also got them (with the “everybody should have to work, people shouldn’t get life handed to them for free” mentality) to agree that the rise in automation should mean people working less hours each, so everyone still has jobs (basically, UBI and changing “full time” to 25 or 30 hours, where people get overtime past that… creating more jobs while peoples needs are still covered).

It’s amazing, sometimes, how starting with some similar premises (people should have to work, which I mostly agree with) and shared threat (automation taking jobs) can lead to some more open minds for things that they would otherwise be adamantly against.

When you multiply the productivity of every practitioner of a trade, they can lower their prices.

I’m sorry, but that’s some hilarious Ayn Rand thinking. Prices didn’t go down in grocery stores that added self-checkout, they just made more profit. Companies these days are perfectly comfortable keeping the price the same (or raising them) and just cutting their overhead.

Don’t get me wrong, if there are things they could get more profit by selling more, then they likely would. But I think those items are few and far between. Everything else they just make more money with less workers.

I was with you (to a degree)until:

they’re supposed to miraculously become an expert in navigating a potentially life-destroying minefield, where the only two outcomes is magically getting it right, or risking a non-trivial probability of incarceration and a criminal record when they (invariably) get it wrong?

This is some nonsense. The worst the man will get (barring some VERY unacceptable behavior on his part) is yelled at by an angry (and probably shitty, if all the man did was politely approach at even a remotely reasonable time) woman. Which, turns out, is something women deal with from shitty men fairly regularly. It turns out, when you are interacting with strangers out in public, there is a small chance you are going to interact with an asshole. That doesn’t mean you should be a hermit, that means you met an asshole. And if everyone you meet is an asshole… you’re probably the asshole.

But nobody is going to jail or having life-shattering consequences for saying hello to a woman they don’t know.

THAT BEING SAID, if we, as men, are regularly told that approaching a woman in public is uncomfortable, unpleasant, or downright scary for women, decent men won’t want to approach women in order to avoid making them uncomfortable.

My personal experience has been to the contrary, and have struck up conversations with a number of women I didn’t know in public, and never had a particularly bad experience. Maybe I am generally non-threatening, or maybe I have better social skills than some, but if all a person who rarely interacts with women hears is that initiating any sort of contact is unpleasant to the woman they talk to, I can’t imagine they’d be inclined to strike up a conversation. And if they do make women uncomfortable (due to poor social skills from… not regularly interacting with women), it only reinforces that belief.

What’s the answer? I don’t know. But it feels like making men who care about the feelings of women uncomfortable with approaching them does nothing but leave the ones who don’t care. I think the message needs to change.

I had understood it to be even worse:

The sacrifices at the temple were expected to be pretty much perfect, and had to be found acceptable by the temple priests. So the merchants would get “pre-blessed” sacrifices that they would sell at exorbitant prices to the pilgrims, who would have the sacrifices they brought deemed “inadequate” by the priests.

So if you brought an animal sacrifice, you’d still have to buy another (costly) animal. If you brought money, you’d be forced to exchange it at a significant loss.

The whole thing was an obvious scam, and Jesus was killed over it (and the rest of his message). I don’t believe he was God Incarnate, but I’m still a big fan of Jesus the man.

I’m pretty confident that all would have gone about the same way in this era.

In all fairness I bet he gets a lot of gender fluids going…

I’ll never understand how difficult people make things by not being forthright and making things awkward:

“Is it okay if I bring my boyfriend?”

“…I think there’s been a misunderstanding. I had asked you on a hike as a fun first date, I didn’t realize you had a boyfriend. I’m going to bow out of this, but I can give you the hike info if you want to take him.” And then you laugh about the misunderstanding the next work day, and keep things at work from then on. No reason for it to get bad. Flirting is still fun! Just leave it at that without expecting anything more.

My experience with people who are really into working out is that they want everyone to be into working out, and want to help you get there. They’re nerds for lifting. They’re excited to get you excited.

Anyone who shit-talks you for not already being great at it is a fucking poser and you should tell them that.

My school had 5 minutes between classes and was fairly large. Making it to the next class in time was challenge enough without battling for a stall, if there was even a bathroom on the way.