Sometimes labels help. Sometimes they don’t.

Also, Emily Nagoski’s Come As You Are could help!

ah gotcha

lol

Thanks for the explanation. Umm, unfortunately I still don’t get it. For the OP to make sense, can someone explain what’s going on?

Good shitpost. Banger piece. Am satisfied.

Many comments have alluded to this: people are contextual.

I’ll add to this that thoughts are very, very flexible.

In some contexts we learn to think one way and in other contexts we learn to think in other ways. Our thoughts always get activated by context, either external contexts or internal contexts. For example seeing an apple might have us think we’re hungry if we’re hungry. Or it may make us think we don’t even want to see it if we just ate a lot. Or we might think of our upcoming presentation and that may be the context for the thought “I’m not prepared enough”.

Not only are thoughts contextual, but they behave in interesting ways. Often, we transfer thoughts from one context to another context. If we think “I’m never prepared for presentations”, we might end up reinforcing ideas like “I’m never prepared [in general]”. We may end up thinking we’re never prepared for dinner with friends or for tough conversations with loved ones.

Another critical feature of thoughts is that we can even change the role thoughts have in our behavior. For example, the thought “I’m not prepared enough for my presentation” may be seen as a literal truth. Or it could be seen as a thought and just a thought. In other words, thoughts can sometimes be taken literally and we can be fused with them or we can look at them from a distance.

These three examples illustrate my point: thoughts are ridiculously flexible.

This flexibility is what explains the phenomena you notice. That is how we end up with a capitalist who may have strong thoughts about family and may stop focusing on profit-maximization when their employee’s daughter die. That is how we end up with a worker who could have strong thoughts about profits and may stop focusing on solidarity with his peers when a promotion is offered.

My perspective comes from contextual behavioral science and relational frame theory.

In your experience, does fighting the feelings help? Answer not using your logic, but your felt experience.

Odds are, fighting doesn’t help. Otherwise you wouldn’t be here asking for help.

You hurt because you care. You care about belonging, about contributing, about being open to others. And, since you care about this and you’ve experienced their opposites, you hurt.

We can’t get rid of this kind of hurt. Would you even want to? Would you want to be indifferent to other people?

I’m not trying to be mean or brutal. I’m just trying to get to a place where this hurt is a meaningful part of your life and not something you keep fighting (and failing to defeat).

So what can you do? You could notice your thoughts as thoughts. You can try giving your brain a name and thanking it for informing you about the things it informs you throughout the day. This doesn’t make thoughts disappear, but it helps seeing them as thoughts and not reality.

You can also imagine that you carry your sensations, memories, moods, thoughts, images, etc. in your hands, as if you were carrying a delicate flower. This is a way to honor your life without running a way from it and also without being entirely determined by it.

Finally, you can ask yourself what kind of person you want to be, what you stand for. What are the qualities of being that you would like to adopt in your life? You can discover this intuitively by wondering what you care for. If rejection hurts, you likely value inclusion. If abandonment hurts, you likely value consistency and kindness.

The task the becomes accepting our current reality (thanking our brain for its suggestions and holding our whole life experience preciously) and taking our next step with the qualities of being that we value.

If you’re curious about this perspective, let me know and I can tell you more about it :)

I’ve met Christians who have explained their train of thought.

Their strongest argument, in my mind, is that the Christian god created the universe for humans to choose to live well. This god is not intervening and simply created the universe’s initial conditions, much like a clock-maker. In this view, Christians simply choose what kind of life they want and they hope it will get them closer to their god.

It would seem that the choice of being progressive does not stop many Christians from meeting their god. In fact, I’ve met people who say that progressive causes are the way we build heaven on Earth.

Another argument I’ve heard is that the Christian god has said lots of things to lots of people over long spans of time. These utterings have not always been exactly the same. Sometimes the Christian god says some things to some people and some other things to other people. Therefore it is a good Christian’s duty to dutifully reinterpret the Christian god’s words.

I don’t particularly like this second argument because it seems unnecessarily complicated.

But the first one seems more coherent and with less moving pieces.

Depression has lots of ways of manifesting.

One way of describing depression is an unwillingness to engage with life and to feel, because the person has learned that engaging or feeling will lead to pain. This is the functional contextual definition.

Another one comes from Martin Seligman, who defines it as an unwillingness to try things because the person has learned that engaging in something will lead to failure.

In either definition, the unwillingness is contextual. In other words, someone might be depressed regarding work but not their partner. Or someone might be depressed regarding their family but not their partner.

Not ruminating about it + time + having stuff to look forward to in life + paying attention to my present

Is it really worth it?

This is a matter of defining words. It’s fine to play the game of “which word best corresponds to the phenomena”, but I prefer playing another game: what function or what purpose is this word or this definition serving in context?

It would be sad to see “racism is structural” as an excuse for people to be cynical assholes (as opposed to tactical protesters). It’s much better when it’s used to achieve an equitable and fair world.

Beyond function, there’s also another framework that could help you: complexity dynamics. Racism happens within a complex system. Within that system, there are powerful actors, constraints, and constructors. Understanding this makes it clearer why, even if polite society is polite to marginal groups, systematic discrimination in schooling, credit, and incarceration are still structural racism.

If this clicks with you and you wanna learn more, let me know and I can recommend some stuff :)

I was working temporarily at a place with a cafeteria. I was having lunch and a guy sat with me and we talked for a while. It was obvious he wasn’t brainwashed by neoliberalism or neoconservatism. I mentioned it and he said “I’m an anarchist”.

“Check out Lemmy.” He loved how it sounded. Idk. Maybe he’s here.

Also, I get that, arguably, anarchists aren’t normies, but you defined normies in a computer-literacy way and he wasn’t a techie.

Just so you know, you’re not alone. When avocados are introduced to new markets (this happened a long time ago in the USA), people need to learn how to engage with it. People need to learn how to buy it, how to open it, how to include it in foods.

And, as you’ve heard, indeed it’s not meant to be sweet and instead it’s just like fat. And it’s very healthy fat.

I agree with what someone else said: I’d try making a simple guacamole recipe and eating the guacamole with nachos or tortillas or something like that!

Also, as someone else said, it’s totally fair if you don’t like guacamole. Some people don’t and it’s alright :)

Idk… it’s posted in the LemmyShitPost community. I think we’re doomed regardless 💀

I remember reading that commute time is the number one predictor for leaving a job. I wonder what the evidence would show if I properly looked it up.

Shoutout to the developers who work on making Linux safer. Adding memory-safe languages to Linux seems like an uphill battle.

It’s such an uphill battle that some people have altogether stopped contributing to Linux. An example is the former Asahi Linux lead developer.

I’m glad you all have experimented and found what works for you all!

Your evening-morning setup sounds great! I do something similar, brewing all the coffee I’ll drink throughout the day in a single batch. That way I control my caffeine intake and I have tasty coffee no matter where I go!

I figured that’s the joke, isn’t it?

Also, I’m in the same boat. My current one does it whenever someone uses water elsewhere in the flat.

I agree with you that hobbies often enshittify. However, coffee has a special place in my heart because you can make really, really tasty coffee with simple tools.

My setup is a plastic cone, a set of filter papers, a plastic kettle, a thermometer, a dispersion screen, and a scale.

As to grinding coffee, you’re right that a grinder is expensive. There’s no way around that. However, you can do what my partner and I did for months: our local coffee shop ground our coffee each week.

Why am I saying all of this?

In part because I agree with you. I actually approach coffee deliberately with an 80/20 mindset: I’ll get 80% of the coffee goodness for 20% of the effort. I do this because I don’t want to get sucked into the deep end.

And I think you could get a lot of coffee goodness for very little effort. Coffee ratios are a great way to start. You take just a few steps so that you can play around with temperature, grind size, and pouring technique. In my mind, that’s the 20% that gets me 80% of coffee goodness.

Of course, it’s possible that you like your current setup and that’s great! I believe the best coffee is the coffee that you like.