I don't really get it either. My biggest complaint is that they tell you to go see the doctor for everything and 9/10 of the time the doctor will tell you to go home and take ibuprofen and see what happens.
I think it's generally possible to tell, based on what's provided on WebMD, what symptoms would cause a doctor to recommend an immediate trip to the ER or surgery or pharmaceuticals. It's required learning more than I would otherwise know about how my organs function, but I also don't think I know like... an exceptional amount about the human body.
This. Patriarchy sort of collectively defines the "emotion" out of the ways that men act out. When women cry, they're being emotional, when men get angry, it's a rational response to people acting the wrong way. (Not to mention the fact that the idea of being "emotional" is itself, considered bad somehow!) When you start to notice the ways that men act out emotionally for what they are, it becomes apparent that men are easily as emotional as women (I'd argue much more so), it just manifests in ways that society has deemed manly.
This is the most insightful comment I've read in weeks and I've never thought of things this way before. This changes the way I look at people.
Men and women are just as emotional: The main difference is that men are shamed for being sad/crying, so our emotions end up manifesting as anger instead. Men get angry because they aren't allowed to cry.
I played some sports growing up, but I also really strongly disliked a lot of sports that I didn't play (which I now don't mind watching at all), and I think if you like anything competitive, it's possible to at least get interested enough in some sports to use them as a conversation starter.
One thing that helps me get interested in sports I don't otherwise care about is to think of them like a board-game, thinking through the math of various possibilities and optimal strategies.
Another thing, if you live in a state that's amenable, is to bet small amounts on the outcomes of games. Betting $20 on a game makes it way more entertaining (for me anyway), and when I lose, it was worth the money just to enjoy the game more.
The last thing that helps is to think of it as a purely physical performance. Going to watch live sports can help with this - but for people who haven't spent much time in the sporting world, it's hard to understand how big, how fast, how strong, how coordinated, professional athletes are, and it's possible to just enjoy watching people running and jumping and throwing the same way you'd enjoy watching people dance or play music or esports or whatever, just people with exceptional skills doing exceptional things.
At this point in my life, I emphatically do not enjoy sports for their own sake, I pay attention to them for the social aspect and for the reasons mentioned above, but I couldn't care less about the outcomes of anything. It's a far cry from how I felt about them as a young person, but it's evidence, perhaps, that not being interested in them doesn't mean I can't still connect with people over them.
I disagree that it's overblown. For every study that's utterly failed to replicate over the past however many decades, people have been "sure it is more likely to be correct than the alternative" and that's literally not the case. The word "science" has been invoked in a way that makes people believe that they have more information about the world than they do. Updating towards a study that wasn't properly conducted is worse than the study not existing, because it removes uncertainty that you should still possess, but it is touted as "science" in popular media all the same.
Especially in areas like psychology or sociology, where studies over the past few decades are more likely not to be replicable than they are to be replicable. Compounded with the disgusting state of pop "scientific" "journalism", it's probably a better heuristic at this point not to believe most scientific news to be correct.
Updating towards a study that wasn't properly conducted is worse than the study not existing, because it removes uncertainty that you should still possess, but it is touted as "science" in popular media all the same.
This is why I try to pollute as much as I possible can. "Science" keeps telling me that climate change is an important issue and that we need to curb pollution to fight it. As you just said, since it comes from a place that can't be trusted, the logical choice is to take the opposite stance.
As a lawyer, there is so much more that falls under the umbrella of "practicing law" that is nowhere near as demanding as a trial or contract negotiations. I personally think the credentials that lawyers have are completely unnecessary for a large portion of the tasks that only lawyers are allowed to perform.
I think the bar exam is more like, sufficient but not necessary, anyone who can pass the bar is easily capable of being a lawyer, but I don't think the bar is necessary at all to prove that someone is capable.
What kind of law do you practice? In my view every litigator has to be ready to go to trial.
I guess if you are going to be a contract document review attorney or something then maybe the bar is overkill in some ways. But I would argue that the only value added by someone like a document review attorney is the fact that they passed the bar (demonstrating a broad base of knowledge).
I was under the impression that most attorneys are not litigators. You can easily spend a career writing wills or creating trusts or doing business formations, or helping people through real estate transactions without ever setting foot in a courtroom.
One of the first things they taught us in law school is that most lawyers won't actually spend much time at all in a courtroom, and I've found that to be true. There's so much else that lawyers do, and a lot of it is done preliminarily by paralegals, and in my opinion, a lot of it could go out the door at that point, having been done by the paralegal. I actually think a lot of work does go out the door at that point and there's just a grand performance happening where we all pretend that the lawyer did more than a cursory review.
Maybe that's not how law should be practiced, but judging by the wills and LLC agreements that come across my desk, it's how it is practiced and the world goes on without noticing.
I am not a lawyer, but I would guess there is a position for "slightly more than Legal Zoom". I want to create a will (and don't need to worry about estate taxes.) I want to create an LLC. My counterparty and I agree on the terms and we need someone to draft or modify a contract that specifies what we say.
This is exactly how I feel as well. There is a ton of stuff that lawyers do that is basically rote, there are a handful of questions you need to ask, and then you do the thing, and there's no reason someone with an associate's degree and a six week training course couldn't do it, with a strict rule to refer more complicated stuff to the attorneys.
I'm always complaining to my wife about movies with a detective/mystery component where the key to the whole thing is revealed after the mystery is solved and is is something that we, as viewers, could not possibly have known. It feels the same as using magic. It's always seemed to me that it should be possible for the viewer to solve the mystery at the same time as the protagonist, given only what the viewer knows so far. It's validating to see that this is considered a vital component of a detective story, at least by some.
It will be rather difficult for the board to argue that it's satisfying it's fiduciary duty by rejecting an offer with such a high premium so the current shareholders can continue to own a company that's losing money.
Marrying a successful, ambitious man does not, in any way, mean that a woman should defer completely to every single career decision a man makes. I'm sure this executive's schedule was already plenty demanding without the burden of moving to another country.
Haha the parent post literally said that it was ironic that a woman would marry an ambitious man and then complain about said ambition. The ambition, implicitly,
being wanting to move to Asia for a job. It seems to me if a woman isn't allowed to complain about moving continents for a job, she's not allowed to complain about anything, and this is, therefore, not a strawman.
So with that logic... if he gets a huge opportunity to run the Asian division which he feels compelled to take despite her objections, then she is not allowed to ask for smaller concessions such as "hey, can you turn off the work phone on Saturdays"? You linking those together doesn't make sense.
I don't see any problem with that, I'm not the one who said it was ironic that a woman would marry an ambitious man and then have problems with moving to Asia. I don't see any conflict at all between loving someone's ambition and also wanting other things from the relationship.
Supporting one's spouse does not mean acquiescing to every opportunity afforded the other. Things are a little different when we're talking about matters of shelter/food/health, but in this situation we're talking about an international relocation of an already successful businessman. He was pursuing personal career and experience outcomes, he wasn't trying to drag his family above the poverty line.
And besides, it's pretty clear HE regrets the decision. Maybe learn something from the person who lived the experience.
> Everything changes all the time without exception. Getting used to change serves everyone.
This statement is meaningless. Change in life is constant, but everything doesn't change all the time. You weaponize this statement as if to say we - or at least one spouse - should abdicate their agency in their own or their shared life.
I find your comment pretty agressive ("Maybe learn something from the person", "This statement is meaningless")...
Which is pretty ironic because if saying "everything changes constantly" is meaningless, what about your advice to "learn" from a comment on the internet about a man he doesn't know at all that "regrets" something neither of us really know about ?
One example has zero value as a "life changing lesson" and one can regret objectively awful things (regretting the feeling while high on drugs, etc).
> Which is pretty ironic because if saying "everything changes constantly" is meaningless, what about your advice to "learn" from a comment on the internet about a man he doesn't know at all that "regrets" something neither of us really know about ?
The OP's statement was a truism used - in this instance - to critique the wife for not "adapting to change". I think I made that pretty clear in my comment. If you can apply that BS truism here, why not elsewhere? Why not just always go with the flow, never have desires or motivations of your own? Why ever object to undesired life changes?
It bothered me, as you can tell. It's not advice based in the reality of a shared life. Telling someone unhappy with the direction of their life that "getting used to change serves everyone" is terrible, borderline offensive advice. The worst takeaway is to blame the woman for not going along to get along, which dijonman2 sure seemed to be doing to me.
I'll take the critique of my own comment, though my point remains: the person who wrote the article was trying to impart a life lesson they learned a hard way, and I encourage that user (and all of us) to reflect on it and potentially learn something. My "maybe" wasn't passive aggressive by intent, it was meant to be interpreted literally, albeit not expressed in a very considerate way.
I get your point better now, thanks for the clarification.
I agree we should try to improve things that can be improved, but I guess this example's extreme nature (international relocation) makes it difficult to have a nuanced talk about couples' intra-dynamics...
The thing is, he was likely already providing incredibly well for the household and didn't need to move the whole family to Asia. If I pulled some crazy shit like that, I'd hope my wife reminds me who I'm working for and why.
Money isn’t free. The person earning needs to be supported. Running a house is work but I wholeheartedly reject the notion of someone both working and supplicating their partner. This is abuse.
Lawyers say a lot of stupid things to be sure, but generally not when it pertains to their practice area. Some things they say that sound stupid are actually how the law works, and in my experience as an actual lawyer, people who are not lawyers vastly overestimate how much they know about the law, and are far more confident when giving opinions than a lawyer would be.
I've had multiple high priced lawyers with years of experience in the area give me completely, factually wrong information about THEIR PRIMARY PRACTICE AREA over the years. It still blows my mind.
In one case, I was stupid enough to believe them even though I knew it didn't quite sound right and it cost me an immense amount of money and a huge amount of stress in the resulting litigation.
And I know they were completely factually wrong because I had double checked with them what they said, they confirmed it (reiterated it actually) - and then it was very much not correct, as confirmed by the following court case which I had to settle, because I had been operating under a factually wrong view of the law. Not even 'eh, could go either way', but 90% of the lawyers I interviewed for the follow-up litigation literally said 'Well, that's dumb. Why did you do that? Of course you're going to get sued. Did you write it down you were doing that? Well, you're in deep trouble. Sorry, my calendar is booked solid, can't help you.'
More recently, while interviewing civil litigation attorneys, I had one who was referred to me with excellent references. Easily 20 years of practice too, I forget the exact number I pulled from the Bar.
I had done quite a bit of research on the area. Specifically I had tracking down and read the complete civil procedure that defined the applicable statue of limitations, and did some cursory research on the case law around it. I also pulled the applicable penal codes, case law, and civil damage claims - in this case Conversion, Grand Theft, Subornation of Perjury, Perjury, and a few others - and had figured out the likely elements of the crimes that were applicable, which I could prove and how easily, which ones were iffy, etc.
When I laid out the evidence and the case, he tried to convince me that I was outside the statute of limitations (even though it had only been 6 months since the event had first occurred, and was still ongoing), and that the court would throw it out and I'd be liable under anti-SLAPP - even though I could prove the party involved had committed perjury and filed a false police report, and there was no plausible claim it was a matter of public interest.
The case law is quite clear that perjury is not a protected type of speech, and matters of public interest are also clearly defined enough that this wouldn't apply at all. So the anti-SLAPP statute couldn't apply.
I would have to prove perjury, but I literally had solid, fully contextual video evidence that showed that what was claimed in the other parties court filing (initial AND follow-up) was not and could not have happened, AND it showed that the opposite had happened - they were the party at fault, and they had to have known it, or were clearly mentally incompetent.
This video was from cameras the other party had requested be installed, AND knew recorded these things/area, AND that they knew I had access to and had their permission to access/download from.
When I asked him why he thought it was outside the statute of limitations since the applicable statute of limitations for civil claims in that state cut off at 1, 2, or 3 years for civil claims (and this was likely a 3 year case due to violations of the penal code), he literally sputtered out 'you knew that?' before making a rapid 'I wish you luck sir', and hanging up on me.
Bullshitters abound, and Lawyers are better than most at Bullshitting as it's a large part of the job. Same as sales folks. Most lawyers customers are in dire straights, overwhelmed and overloaded, and in trouble and changed life circumstances that they don't understand for reasons they have difficulty processing/understanding, let alone breaking down or describing in a coherent way.
If they run across someone who looks good, says what they want to hear, and has the trappings (books, the office, the tie, whatever), 99% of these customers can't or won't be able to do critical thinking on what is being said, let alone cross reference it with something concrete or do their own research.
They also don't have the time or are in life circumstances in most cases to interview enough attorneys and learn the relevant sections of law to do basic bullshit checks either.
There is a reason the Bar and licensing/testing exists - without it, it would be an even bigger disaster and shark chum feed. It's also been my experience that about 80% (or more) of licensed practicing attorneys are happy to bullshit you with happy go lucky stories about how they'll get x thing done, or you totally have a case, or you can totally do this thing and it'll be fine, when, while not impossible, that's just not really a good idea for you. And will happily turn the crank on billable hours producing things that look really cool and impressive if you don't know what's going on, but are often riddled with factual errors, missing useful procedural elements, or not providing evidence in a way that is going to make the case clear and easy to judge. At least that gets them paid in the resulting disaster or while it churns on with no end in sight anyway.
You also can end up with 'this is impossible', or 'that is not how it works', when actually, it could be done, it's just outside of their area of expertise (and they don't want to admit they don't know).
To the original point, it is rare to have someone give completely, clearly factually incorrect information about their specialty, but it does happen. If you interview 10 lawyers, you'll find at least one, probably two in my experience who will do so.
If I had written records of the wrong advice in my situation (instead of phone calls), I would have filed a complaint with the Bar, but lawyers are unfortunately ALSO pretty good at covering their asses, and the Bar is pretty good at looking like it's going after folks without really changing anything. So not worth trying frankly.
I think it's generally possible to tell, based on what's provided on WebMD, what symptoms would cause a doctor to recommend an immediate trip to the ER or surgery or pharmaceuticals. It's required learning more than I would otherwise know about how my organs function, but I also don't think I know like... an exceptional amount about the human body.