Usually I stop after 2 or 3 attempts.
You could also ask him directly. Maybe he’s generally not interested in lunching together, or he was just too busy to respond, or whatever. These questions can be awkward, but also deepen a friendship. A risk-reward mechanic in the game of life.
I like that, especially this insight:
when two things have very few attributes in common or the attributes they can be compared on are very broad, general or abstract, it is harder to compare them.
A melon and a pogo stick are harder to compare, for their defining attributes hardly overlap except on a very abstract way.
Good on you to say “harder to compare” :D
it’s all semantic subjectivity. Poetry compares dissimilar things and equates unequal concepts all the time.
Another thing worthwhile to point out; subjectivity. I guess that part bothered me too. “cannot be compared” attempts to establish some kind of objective truth, whereas it only can be a subjective opinion.
The reference to poetry was nice, too.
My point works just as well with an arbitrary amount of options. Someone could say “These quintillion things cannot be compared”.
The number of options is irrelevant to what I tried to address. Though my examples were only pairs, so sorry for causing confusion.
Thanks for taking the time to write this detailed reply. I guess you’re right about the equivocation and I can see the irony :D
Though I have not fully understood yet. Following your example, the two different concepts are …
What blocks me from fully agreeing is that still, both are comparisons. And they don’t feel so different to me that I would call them different concepts. When I look up examples for equivocations, those do feel very different to me.
I still guess you’re right. If you (or someone else) could help me see the fallacy, I’d appreciate.
Agreed, yeah. Guess I was taking the word too literally.
That’s true. A lot more could be said about this, on various levels in various directions. Ultimately I don’t think this systemic crisis can be solved on a consumer level. The attempt leads to the status quo; different subcultures with some people paying extra to calm their consciousness, while most don’t care or cannot afford. I’m afraid if we try to work with individual sacrifice against economic incentives, the latter will win.
It’s also true that some companies use their economic power as a political lever, to influence legislation in their favor. Or as a societal lever, to sway public opinion in their favor. I guess this meme here tries to address that. I honor the motive. Just the chosen vehicle is broken. With mountains of evidence supporting the cause, however, there are plenty of other, perfectly fine vehicles available.
This meme is so wrong it is deliberate misinformation. The Guardian made an article which is probably this meme’s source. It even linked to the original source, the Carbon Majors Report. But blatantly misquoted the CMR. For example, CMR says something like “100 fossil fuel producers responsible for 71% of industrial GHG emissions”, but The Guardian (and meme posters) omit the italic bits.
What do they mean with producers? Not companies like Apple or Heinz, but simply organizations which produce fossil fuels. Duh. Shell, BP, but also entities like China’s coal sector (which they count as one producer, although it consists of many entities). CMR also states 3rd type emissions are included. Which means emissions caused by “using” their “products”, e.g. you burning gasoline in your car.
So yes, the downvoted guy saying “Consumer emissions and corporate emissions are the same emissions” is pretty spot on in this case, albeit most likely by accident. Rejected not for being wrong, but for not fitting into a narrative, which I call the wrong reasons. Please check your sources before posting. We live in a post-factual world where only narratives count and truth is just another feeling, because of “journalism” and reposts like this. Which is the infuriating part in this particular case. I guess you want to spread awareness about the climate crisis, which is good, but you cannot do so by propagandizing science and spreading lies.
All that from the top of my head. Both the ominous TG article and the fairly short report are easy to find. In just a couple of minutes you can check and confirm how criminally misquoted it was.
An (intuitively) working search would be a great step ahead. It should find and show things if they exist, and only show no results if they do not. That a plethora of external tools exist to meet these basic needs shows both how much this is needed, and how much it is broken.
I also feel I have more luck finding communities if searching for ‘all’, instead of ‘communities’. Don’t make me add cryptic chars to my search to make it work. Do that for me in the background if necessary.
It’s been long since I’ve been using it, but iirc, it’s impossible or painful to search for a specific community in your subscribed list.
at that point it will become clear that this is a stupid thing to do
While you’re technically right, I’m afraid things don’t work that way. Pushing people into a corner can have the paradoxic opposite result of strengthening their position, even if it is “clearly” wrong.
Ok? That’s not what I meant or said. If you approach people with this self-centered negative attitude, no wonder they don’t connect.
The majority of them don’t ever reply, the few that do put zero effort into the conversation and often just want
moneysex. Once in a while awoman agrees to meet then just doesn’t. What the actual fuck? How do youguysgirls handle this bullshit?
To be fair, I heard very similar stories (see the minor edits) from my dates. Apparently, dating sites suck for both sides. Low effort, low result.
It helps your own sanity and attractivity to not generalize and act as if the other person is genuinely decent. If they are not, move on. If they are, at least you did not screw them up for the faults of other people.
Yes, lots of women are interested in actually dating, but many, like you, suspect every other person to be a horrible experience. So each side is busy with their negative expectations and fears, plays defensively. And of course, the asymmetry does not help either.
Generally, I think it makes sense to slow down or stop or change if what you are doing becomes too frustrating for you.
Or maybe my experiences don’t translate well to your area/bubble/whatever. You could talk to your female friends and see what their experiences are.
You didn’t specify what phone technology you use. If the signal leaves the house in an old fashioned way, crosstalk could be the cause. I’m nearly sure this is impossible for digital communication (cellphone, voice over IP). It might be an explanation if you and your neighbor still use copper cable phones.
Right, that was the spirit. Though to be honest, it can harm. Some people are shy. Or strongly shy away from awkward situations caused by not-yet-close-friends. They can still be great friends, but unlucky situations during the getting-to-know each other phase can prevent that. We judge people with different standards, depending on how close they are. So when you interpolate distant-behavior to predict close-behavior, there is probably some error margin.
So there is some risk involved in asking, but likewise for not asking. I guess just be you and see where it goes.
One final thought: I think it’s important to take care that the question is not perceived as an accusation.