I’m also autistic and also don’t really feel anger. I feel disappointed and/or frustrated with how people act, and I can feel a complete lack of goodwill towards people (not my baseline, I generally want to help people if I can). There are certainly people who deserve negative consequences for their actions and I don’t feel any compassion for Assad, for example. I probably wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire, but I don’t feel angry with him (I might if I were Syrian and/or had more experience with the effects of his actions).

In my personal life, I don’t have any exes that I’m angry with (and I have some awful exes), it’s either confused, afraid of, pitying, neutral or positive.

Though tbh, I’m not sure if I just don’t recognize anger but do feel it. A coworker was sketchy about a tip we should have shared the other day, and I felt that it was wrong she pretended she hadn’t gotten a tip, and sad for her that she’d be deceptive about €0,65, but I wasn’t angry.

I do feel spiteful sometimes, which has got to be similar, but the only way I really express that is being extra polite to someone who’s being a dick so they feel guilty. It feels to me like I do that because I want them to be less rude in the future and I want to help induce the natural consequence of guilt that comes along with rudeness, but that could also just be my rationalizing it.

It’s actually a syllabic L, which is often spelled out as a schwa in pronunciation dictionaries.

If you speak German, an equivalent would be the -en on most unconjugated verbs. Haben is pronounced with a syllabic n (or m, depending on your accent), for example.

The difference is basically in length. A syllabic consonant is shorter than even a short vowel sound, and which vowel it uses depends on the language. It’s a schwa in English because that’s basically our default vowel, as you pointed out, but not every language uses a schwa as the syllabic consonant carrier: Serbo-Croatian uses [u].

There were already multiple patterns for words ending in “er” (both the doer words, like runner, and a series of words like butter, feather, sister), so it could be a conflation, but I think it’s more likely that it’s just a simplification. British has “er” and “re” endings for meter, depending on whether it’s a verb or a noun, and Americans just spell both “er” for simplicity’s sake.

So bad it’s good or nah?

If the beavers banded together and tried to exterminate humanity, they wouldn’t get as far as humanity would exterminating beaverkind. That’s domination: exerting your will on those around you to their detriment and not being deterred by their resistance, no?

I don’t think that’s a fun competition or nice thing to consider, but there are few animals that could come close to beating us in that regard. Ants, termites, and bees are the first that come to mind for me, but there are probably other possibilities.

Plants, fungi, and bacteria on the other hand… I don’t think we could really expect to win against the most ubiquitous examples of those.

Entropy is ever expanding, so there’s no way to do no harm, though ideally we each try to do as little as possible. There are some parts of our lives where there’s no perfect answer, like technology or clothing, because for the most part, those are both generally exploitative and necessary to support yourself. In these cases, buying second hand can help, but it’s still a secondary market for products that benefit from slavery and/or it’s a separate, new evil like Goodwill or the Salvation Army. Taxes are also necessary, and the only workable remedies for the awful things that are paid for by those taxes are petitioning and electing as representative a government as possible or bringing it all down (which would itself include quite a lot of violence).

This is a totally different thing. This is investing excess money into an evil thing so that you can profit. There’s no requirement here, it’s an entirely voluntary worsening of the world.

Then it really seems like you’re providing funds for slavery and wishing it wasn’t harmful.

Are you organizing in any way to see that you can cooperate with like minded people? I’m not trying to be rude, but you should really think about the effect you want to leave on the world (not just you, everyone should).

That makes the world worse though. Do you really want to make the world a worse place?

It would be too long with all of the -ini and -eti suffixes. Capellinettinettinettine ad infinitum

I bet every shit he’s taken for the last forty years has been unpleasant at least

The legal way for Cubans to come here is to come here. Literally, they can get residency as long as they show up

Autistic and I don’t care, but I do listen and I try to do it well.

Can I ask what color your kid’s freckles are? I ask, because the redheads in my family have orange freckles, and the non-redheads have brown freckles. It looks like that correlates with the type of melanin, which would also affect whether they tan.

*Affect

That’s what the spoiler is for. Note that I corrected one of the few correct things about that comment

I’m not trying to be rude, but it’s “day in age,” not “day and age,” what would that even mean, lol

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Cheney

Here you go

They are acting like they found cannabinoids in, like, a grass or something

I don’t get people who smoke grass without cannabinoids.

(I’m sorry)

Because of the placebo effect, all you really need for anything that’s not outright poison to have a positive effect on average is a convincing enough practitioner. Ideally people have narrow criteria for judging that, but it’s just so ripe for exploitation, every scammer can try a different tack, and some are bound to slip through.

IMO, the solution is a system of tight regulations on the definition of medical advice and the qualifications required to dispense it. I can also see that this one specifically would be hard to legislatively prevent without training and licensing yoga teachers, for example.