No, I don't crave it, it's an unpleasant experience for me personally. So I feel like dreaming about it is less about "I miss this feeling" and more like if you had some traumatic thing happen and then kept reliving it in your dreams. Thats what it seems like anyway.
I see... does the non concrete contain perception of sensations which are usually physical but can be simulated (like pain, nausea, queaziness, etc)?
That could all be true, but I should clarify when I said I felt like crap I meant physically (mentally as well, sure). As in, how you feel if you're really sick and unwell. Nausea, queaziness, headache, pain, lightheaded, etc.
It's emotions and feelings as well (anxiety, stress, depression, disorientation, nausea, pain, etc) Just saying
I should have probably mentioned I have tactile dreaming, meaning I feel physical sensations including pain in dreams, and my main reason why I feel "tormented" (or even tortured) by these dreams is not so much from a psychological or philosophical point of view (although there is that as well), but because in addition to feeling anxious, depressed, confused & disoriented in these dreams, which are all unpleasant experiences for me, I also feel "physically" unwell, nauseous/ill/sick, and in bodily pain as well in some cases. These are all things I felt when I had these experiences IRL, and yes I am possibly negatively affected more physically by substances than other people, which is part of why I decided it wasn't for me.
I can deal with it if I have to, but since it happens quite often and makes going to sleep something I dread, I would rather prevent it happening if possible (and maybe that just takes a lot of time, I don't know).
I have tactile dreaming, meaning I experience physical sensations including pain in dreams, and in dreams like this I feel really physically unwell/nauseous and uncomfortable. It also happens recurringly, not just once, so I'd like to get to the bottom of how to stop it happening.
Had a dream about drinking alcohol again and feeling like shit. Why is this happening to me? I hate drinking alcohol. I don't know why my dreams keep punishing me.
I blame society for telling me to use drugs. I went along with it to fit in. I don't care about fitting in anymore, but I don't think it was my fault for partaking given the social atmosphere. So why do I have to suffer these dreams that torment me about it? Do I have unresolved trauma related to it or some shit?
PS. I am straight edge now, I haven't used drugs in a long time and don't think about them while I'm awake at all. I prefer to be sober minded. The only part they play in my life is in occasional dreams apparently, which are usually negative and unpleasant.
What does "Free Palestine 'til it's backwards" mean?
Is this a satirical statement mocking the free Palestine movement or a genuinely pro Palestine slogan?
Why isn't it clear that DID exists? I thought it was accepted as a scientific consensus that "enacted" identities were genuinely perceived by the individuals experiencing & reporting them, which is why DID is still included in the DSM to this day.🤔
Yes it is actually, thank you!
Maybe the pronoun "they" works? "I'm wondering if they can..."
I use "they/them" for any animal/sentient being (whether or not they're human) rather than "it" in order to avoid objectifying them, but I recognise this is not standard English. I also use "who" instead of "which" (A monkey/dolphin/dog/goat who (...) rather than a monkey which (...), etc) and basically any of the personal pronouns or words you would use for a human rather than an object (or I guess typically nonhuman animals). It's a deliberate deviation from grammatical rules/traditional language for the sake of aligning with my personal beliefs & ethics about animal rights/vegan stuff. You can just ignore that part though because it's just a force of habit, I actually forgot that would seem weird since it's normal to me, the real confusion I had was with the overall sentence structure & how to phrase it; it still doesn't sound right to me whether you use "it" or "they".
I use "they/them" for any animal/sentient being (whether or not they're human) rather than "it" in order to avoid objectifying them, but I recognise this is not standard English. I also use "who" instead of "which" (A monkey/dolphin/dog/goat who (...) rather than a monkey which (...), etc) and basically any of the personal pronouns or words you would use for a human rather than an object (or I guess typically nonhuman animals). It's a deliberate deviation from grammatical rules/traditional language for the sake of aligning with my personal beliefs & ethics about animal rights/vegan stuff. You can just ignore that part though because it's just a force of habit, I actually forgot that would seem weird since it's normal to me, the real confusion I had was with the overall sentence structure & how to phrase it; it still doesn't sound right to me whether you use "it" or "they".
Is this grammatically correct: "The monkey who I'm wondering if can see my ears."
Or is it "The monkey for whom I'm wondering if they can see my ears."
or
"The monkey, regarding whom, I'm wondering if they can see my ears."
or
"The monkey who I'm wondering if they can see my ears."
All of them sound stupid.
Is there any reason why Todd Phillips' Joker & Matt Reeves' The Batman are narratively incompatible & couldn't co-exist in the same universe hypothetically?
SPOILERS for all ahead:
Can the Joker universe (Joker and Joker: Folie a Deux) and The Batman universe (The Batman, its upcoming sequels, and The Penguin TV series) be considered the same continuity in headcanon, even if not in reality?
The way they're structured seems like they almost could be in the same universe, and many people questioned if they were at some point before it was confirmed they weren't. Joker kind of acts as an origin story for the Batman mythos and his "Rogues Gallery" generally, not for any specific version of Batman, but it seems to connect quite well with Matt Reeves' The Batman: Bruce Wayne is a child in Joker, Harvey Dent is quite young in Folie a Deux and just had his villain arc set up, and the new version of the Joker we see in Arkham at the end of the second movie was also not much older than Bruce at the time, so that they could serve as villains for him once he grew up. And we seemingly saw a version of the Joker in Arkham at the
Is there any evidence of a difference in healthfulness between having fruit vs having added sugar along with fibre foods?
All of the info about why added sugar is unhealthy compared to fruits seems to be that the sugar in fruit comes with fibre and nutrients that offset the negative health impacts of sugar to a degree by delaying its absorption and preventing a blood sugar spike.
However, by this reasoning alone, wouldn't it be possible to infer that if added sugar was paired with the same amount of fibre and nutrients, its effects could be mitigated in the same way as they are in fruit?
Well I haven't found any evidence either supporting or negating this idea or anyone even talking about that question specifically aside from a few other people asking the same thing, and random people replying without citing any evidence. For example someone suggested that indeed taking this approach may work a little bit, but it still won't be as healthy as eating fruit due to the "fibre-infused food matrix" of fruit or that sugar that is found naturally in fruits is "complexed" with fiber that slows down the absorptio
What's the song with the repeated lyrics "after the rain again, after the rain again"?
It's a classic techno song that might be described as euro trance. I think I've heard the song but I'm asking for a friend. It might be an instance of the Mandela effect because the song can't seem to be found anywhere.
What's the song with the repeated lyrics "after the rain again, after the rain again"?
It's a classic techno song that might be described as EuroTrance. I think I've heard the song but I'm asking for a friend. It's possible it might be an instance of the Mandela effect because the song can't be found anywhere.
What's the name of the fallacy where someone appeals to different circumstances that don't currently apply in order to justify something?
Here is the fallacy I'm describing:
Someone defends their own actions, or someone else's actions, as acceptable/justified or necessary, on the basis that those actions might be necessary or justified in certain circumstances, referencing other individuals or circumstances for which it might be necessary or justified, despite their own circumstances/the circumstances in question not having the same elements that would require it or justify it.
For example, someone defends the actions of someone who murdered another person unnecessarily because they disliked them (e.g.), using the argument that there might be people who need to kill in self-defense or in a survival situation for whom it might be justified, despite that not applying to the situation in question.
I'll attempt to write the form of the fallacy here:
X is justified in Y case.
Someone does X in Z case.
X is justified in Z case because X would be justified in Y case.
It's a fallacy because:
What is true of Y case doesn'
At what number of grains of sand does a non-pile graduate into being a pile?
I'm of the view that this is a semantic question where we have a word, "pile", that describes a general amount but doesn't have a specified quantity to it, and so the only way we can determine the amount of units required to constitute a pile at the bare minimum, is through public consensus on the most commonly shared idea we generally have when we think of a pile.
I also think it's possible for there to be a "range of graduation" between a non-pile and a pile, so for example "a non-pile becomes a pile somewhere between x grains and x grains" (depending on what most people think this range is), and if a given number of grains falls below this range, it would necessarily be only a minority of people that would still accept it to be a pile.
So I plan to count the answers here and see if we can come to some kind of consensus or at least most common or average opinion. For sake of not skewing the results, I won't suggest my opinion on what I think the number or range of grains is upon wh
Is there Life on Maaaaaaarrrrrrrr-a-Lago..... ((song)[https://youtu.be/AZKcl4-tcuo?si=0JktuCh_EH-T0T5w])
XXX
I misread the question.
XXX
By everyone, I mean nonhumans (nonhuman animals).
XXX
By playing beatbox music and making everyone stay away from me while I grew corn and ate it slowly in front of them while they watched me cautiously from a distance.
Not necessarily (you may or may not) but you shouldn't be because Dairy is Scary (It's a joke calm down)
What was Thoth's message for us?
Someone told me Thoth was a messenger god but I and everyone else are too dumb to understand what his message was.
If you've been fooled, does that make you "a fool"?
For example, if you said that someone had been fooled by something, would they take offense and think you're calling them a fool or foolish?
What if you say someone's been "played for a fool"?
I saw something speculating that Americans still age faster than other countries due to all the hormones they consume in animal products.
What can we do when something is too vast to provide representative examples for?
I feel like often people ask me "Oh yea? Name some examples." and the burden is on me to prove something by providing representative examples. But often it's so overwhelming how many examples there are for something that I feel obligated then to either list everything, or try extra hard to find good examples, and even then I feel like I could be misrepresenting the case by not providing enough examples. Basically I feel like I would have to give many, many examples, or none at all, otherwise anything in the middle could be non-representative of the true trend.
Ironically, now you will want me to give examples of situations that I'm talking about. But for this I will provide 2 examples and rest on good faith that you will believe me (given the context of this post) that this happens much more often than I care to provide examples for.
So one example is when you are attempting to prove to someone that a certain thing is scientifically proven or is agreed upon as scientific consensus. Y
You're right technically... but i should have said "fictional story" and "plays multiple characters"
What's a movie where a single actor plays EVERY role (with no exceptions)?
Extras/other people in the background are acceptable to meet the criteria but ideally with no human/entity on the screen at all that isn't played by the same actor.
Movies like 'Men', 'Moon' or 'The Nutty Professor' don't meet this criteria for example, due to the exceptions of characters played by other actors.
And it has to be somewhat mainstream and not a low budget student film or something.
Edit: I also meant that they play multiple characters...
Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?
Will people respond better if you say you're teetotal, or straight edge?
Or just "I don't do drugs", or "I don't do recreational drugs"?
Or "I don't smoke weed" and "I don't drink alcohol" when they come up, separately?
I wouldn't generally say it at all unless I'm in a situation where I'm offered recreational drugs such as cannabis or alcohol.
My understanding is the term 'straight edge' might be more well known than 'teetotal', but neither are completely known by everyone.
I take straight edge to mean not doing any recreational drugs. However I read that straight edge can have punk culture connotations that some people might maintain are part of it. Like I might meet a punk straight edger who claims I'm not really straight edge unless I have connections to the punk scene. They also apparently often claim you need to be vegan to be straight edge, I am vegan though coincidentally but not for reasons relating to straight edge culture.
Teetotal I believe most often means abstinence from simply alcohol, but can be used to mean abstaining from all recreati
What's the difference between ethics and morality?
Or "ethical" vs "moral"
What's it called when pronunciations are sounded out with normal letters?
I don't mean IPA symbols (which I can't read) but rather characters from a normal alphabet being used to phoneticise a word, e.g. excerpt is pronounced "[EK] + [SURPT]". What would this be called? Letter-based phoneticisation?
What is the best way to respond to "You have an answer for everything", "You always have to be right", or "You always need to have the last word"?
Is it possible to view a post that was deleted by mods?
I made a post on asklemmy @ lemmy.ml and it was deleted by mods apparently due to "super toxic comments" that users made. I didn't get a chance to view all the comments and still would like to. However, using this backlog: https://lemmy.ml/modlog?page=1&userId=2461030 , https://lemmy.ml/post/3809854 It says that the post couldn't be found. Not sure if that's just a temporary server issue or it's gone completely. Is there a way to view posts that were deleted by mods (even if you made the post yourself)?
If 'carbon negative' and 'carbon positive' are terms used interchangeably to mean completely opposite things, what are alternative terms that clarify the difference without confusion?
For example, could alternative terms like "carbon reducing" and "carbon increasing" make it more clear and avoid misinterpreting which means which?