(Perhaps not Pop OS simply because their desktop Cosmic isn’t quite ready yet for gaming, might be few releases off though hopefully)

I’ve been using PopOS with Cosmic for like 6 months now and haven’t had any more issues than I normally have. If anything I’ve noticed more stable FPS across the board

Or add in those sugar pearls that they use in Belgian waffles

“Pity this poor rich man, because even though he was rich, he still had problems 🥺🥺🥺”

The cup is weighted on the bottom, that’s why it tips over weird and then rights itself

I don’t think I did any of that, where was I uncivil?

And yes, I tend to trust my eyes, ears, and personal experiences over what people tell me; doing otherwise seems silly to me.

K, that’s fine, to a point. If you do that to the exclusion of everyone else’s experiences, you’re doing yourself a disservice.

Would you really ignore your entire personal lived experience, with all the proven first hand evidence, and blindly trust a stranger? Even a doctor or researcher? No.

I wouldn’t ignore my personal lived experience, but I certainly wouldn’t use that discrepancy to ignore doctors and researchers. If a doctor or researcher told me something that differed from my lived experience, I’d do some research myself to figure out why the difference is happening, or to find out if my reasoning about my personal experience is flawed. I recognize the possibility of the researcher or doctor being wrong (and I recognize the much more likely possibility of myself being wrong in a field I have no expertise in), and in case of a personal doctor giving me conflicting information, I’d reach out directly for clarification. Trust but verify.

The important part is, if I encounter new information, I’ll update my opinion. In this case, I’ll keep in mind that some people say they get withdrawals from antidepressants.

That’s fair. If you actively seek new information and challenge your own beliefs, that’s great. The problem comes if you stubbornly refuse to seek new information or challenge your beliefs because you mistrust science or something, and I get the feeling that you fall into that camp, because you say things like:

I believe antidepressants work because people think they work.

And you didn’t realize antidepressants have both anecdotal and clinically proven withdrawal symptoms until a random guy on the internet told you.

However, to me, taking antidepressants to solve depression is like drinking coffee to solve fatigue.

That example is explicitly not placebo. Caffeine does absolutely do something physiologically in your brain - it blocks your adenosine receptors, effectively temporarily turning off the “go to sleep” signals in your brain.

Antidepressants are similar, in that they also typically bind to receptors in the brain. In the case of SSRIs, they typically bind to seratonin transporter molecules, which means more seratonin is available to do the things seratonin does, like helping stabilize your mood and emotions.

I won’t refute that you can develop resistance to antidepressants/SSRIs, because you absolutely can. But you can also develop resistance to insulin. You wouldn’t use that reasoning to tell a diabetic person that their insulin is just a placebo though, instead of life saving and necessary medication, right?

it just becomes your “new normal”; without solving the underlying cause.

In my personal experience, and in most of the scientific literature I’ve read on the topic, the medical standard for treating moderate to severe cases of depression is to combine antidepressants with some other form of therapy, like CBT, DBT, physical therapy, diet changes, etc. So yeah, antidepressants alone probably can’t fix the whole problem in moderate/severe cases. But they absolutely do address the physiological problems in a very real way. Calling it a band-aid temporary fix and implying that it’s the only thing doctors use to treat depression does absolutely show that you’re “lacking knowledge or education” in this area, which absolutely fits that first definition of “ignorant”.

You’re using your singular personal anecdotal experience to color your opinion of mental disorder pharmaceuticals as a whole. Basically, you don’t have enough information to support your conclusions.

For example, I have personal anecdotal experience that directly refutes yours regarding withdrawal symptoms. There is also clinical evidence that refutes your claims on withdrawal symptoms. It seems you haven’t considered those pieces of information, or else you favor your anecdotal evidence over all else, which is a pretty ignorant way to form an opinion and make claims based on it.

Keep in mind, being called ignorant isn’t necessarily an insult, even though it’s frequently used that way, it just means you’re missing or failing to consider some important pieces of information.

I’m lucky if the Amtrak station in my relatively large city has a departure time during waking hours

That must differ depending on airline/airport. I’ve never been able to check in sooner than 2 hours before any flight I’ve ever taken

Right? I’ll take comic sans every day over slopfont. Comic sans was at least designed with intention, for a particular purpose.

I hope you’ve been getting some cozy Wheel of Time reading in while you’ve been recovering from your sickness

There are way less early voting locations and they typically close earlier, so they’re (purposely) much less convenient to plan for. The one time I early voted, I waited in line for like two hours. They ended up staying open past the advertised close time so those of us still waiting in line could vote.

Meanwhile, this morning I went and voted at my normal location and it took like 20 minutes from parking to getting back in my car, and the poll workers there said it was the busiest they’ve seen so far.

I honestly don’t know if this is genuinely supposed to be a shitposting community, and at this point I’m too afraid to ask

This raises more questions than it answers

Yeah I don’t think you really understand what I’m trying to say, and I don’t know how to make it any more clear. Agree to disagree I guess

I proved that citing official Catholic texts.

You didn’t prove anything. Depending on what statistic you’re looking at, Catholics aren’t even a majority of Christians, but even if they are, do you honestly think all Catholics follow the “official Catholic texts”? Catholicism is famously one of the more contentious Christian sects, and always has groups that disagree with the Pope and their leadership.

That the Law is not eternal is very clear

Again, it isn’t, or else this entire thread wouldn’t be happening, and the constant arguments among biblical scholars about that very verse wouldn’t be happening.

if you see a text that says the contrary it should either be dismissed as a text contradicting the whole message, or interpreted to find the actual message.

Lol. In other words, “have blind faith”?

If that’s your argument, you aren’t making it in good faith, and I have no interest in continuing further.

You didn’t show anything, you shared your interpretation and claimed that it’s the one “most” Christians believe without any evidence.

More to the point though, your interpretation isn’t even clear - you yourself admitted that the Bible uses difficult prose, suffers from translation issues, and needs to be viewed through a cultural lense calibrated to the times it was written. How is that “clear” at all?

And I did give you an argument. I directly countered your claim that “the Bible is quite clear” by saying nothing in the Bible is clear and giving examples and reasoning for why I believe it isn’t clear. I thought that was quite clear.

the Bible is quite clear

No it isn’t, or else this conversation wouldn’t be happening.

The Bible is a thousands-year-old compilation of local folk tales and the musings of illiterate sheepherders, munged together by rich elites who saw its usefulness in controlling the masses, and has been translated. modified, and reinterpreted dozens of times to keep it effective at controlling the masses. It’s fraught with inconsistencies, and calling anything in it “quite clear” is honestly just laughable.

Where is the fiber?

The whole-ass pineapple will have plenty of fiber

I’ll just go through one by one and give my thoughts and point out where I saw bias.

He ties himself to, and uses the language of, the far left and related candidates.

Right off the bat, instead of directly saying “he’s a leftist political commentator on twitch”, you instead just say he “ties himself to and uses the language of” leftist candidates. This makes it seem like you’re implying that he isn’t an actual leftist, or that he’s just doing leftism as a performance or something. It’s dismissive of reality, not to mention overcomplicating things.

He backs and campaigns for progressive candidates which often raises awareness and donation for them, but the effect seems to be limited - some candidates he backs does well and others do not. He also seems to make plenty of statements that directly contradicts the candidates he backs and campaign for, causing some of them to try to distance themselves from him.

Your acknowledgement of a positive is immediately followed by a “but” statement, dismissing of the positive. It also places blame on him instead of on the candidates for their campaigns, where it actually belongs in most cases. It also mirrors right-wing talking points where they claim that his “radical viewpoints” are actually fracturing the Democratic base, instead of introducing leftist ideology to an audience that no one else on the left has been able to meaningfully reach yet.

He says his end goal is communism.

Phrasing it like this implies you don’t believe him. It’s dismissive again.

He is from a very affluent family, personally earns a lot of money and he clearly lives an affluent lifestyle. He claims to thrift for designer clothes but when pressed appears to reference outlet stores and similar. Initially he claimed that he doesn’t want his regular thrift stores to get raided by fans, although his fans might be less affluent than him and therefore better served by access to these stores.

Again echoing the dismissive right wing talking point of “he can’t possibly be a ‘Real Socialist’, he comes from a rich family and buys expensive things!”, on top of sowing doubt about his explanation of shopping secondhand. You also confused “outlet stores” for consignment shops.

He has done several very successful charity streams that amassed large amounts of money for good causes. He claims to donate great amounts of money to charities, although the amount of donated money that can be tied to him is very low for his level of wealth, somewhere between 77.000 - 80.000 USD total (0,5-1%) of his estimated wealth, which is 8-14 million USD. While he does not appear to put his money where his mouth is, he does spend some of his time on popular fundraising, which drives a lot of attention to both him and the causes he fund-raise for.

Other than the first sentence, this whole paragraph is dismissive of his charity/fundraising efforts, and is colored by your personal negative bias and what you confidently claim his net worth is (I can find estimates that vary widely from the range you claim).

He is often abrasive in his communication, although he will excuse that with passion for the subjects he talk about.

This is your opinion stated as fact.

He has a large audience that aggressively attacks dissenters or people Hassan expresses dislike for or disagreement with.

This is your opinion stated as fact.

The harassment from his fan base appears to be significantly above and beyond the norm for the space, and while he comments to the contrary it would be hard to believe that he is unaware of the dynamic between him and his fan base.

This is unfounded speculation.

From what I can tell he has taken no steps towards solving this dynamic beyond disavowing some instances of the harassment, while condoning other instances.

I catch bits and pieces of his stream here and there, and in my experience he pretty consistently calls down chatters that are being inappropriate. It sounds like your speculation is based on articles about his streams that cherry pick and decontextualize things.

He does not appear to have a problem with lying about people or broadcasting random people (even known malicious actors, that he himself states to be malicious) on twitter or twitch if it fits his narrative.

This at minimum deserves some examples. Kinda hard for people to “do their own research” when you give so little to go off of.

He often breaks the rules of his streaming platform (twitch) but receives special treatment, although I am unsure if that is due to personal popularity or personal relationships with the owner of twitch.

Another right wing talking point that Hasan himself has addressed and debunked.

He denies using a shock collar on his dog, but looking at the evidence gathered through old videos, still frames from new videos, and from people who personally interacted with the dog would suggest that to be a lie. I do not know if he still uses a shock collar on his dog since the latest controversy.

Another talking point that has been debunked so thoroughly not even the right still uses it.

Do you see it now, or do you still think your comment is unbiased?