Just bought box wine the other day cuz I knew I had to have a super uncomfortable conversation that could not be avoided and I needed to be anaesthetized for it
It worked and I know in retrospect I really needed it to be that way
Edit/Update: person I had convo with just texted me and apologized for combativeness and I mutually apologized for not dealing with it sooner and we’re along and on to solution mode. The system works, please dont drink if you dont have too but dont forbid yourself from using a tool to improve your situation and try to always be honest. The less you lie or hide, the less influence you will have to unnecessarily drink
Thank you. But anecdotally, it seems there are few of us who think this. I still don’t understand why.
Lower karma posts are less likely to be seen?
Exactly my point. The virtual equivalent of taping someone’s mouth shut because you happen not to agree with what they say.
Then you do understand why people are downvoting because this is bad advice and others dont want people to see it.
I’ll be honest, a quick review of this thread did not clearly reveal who was downvoting who for what. My position, and this other person’s, is that downvoting opinions is bad manners and toxic to healthy discussion. If there was genuinely harmful advice there, then OK, downvote away.
(Obviously these days the word “harmful” is thrown around liberally so this probably just puts us back to square one.)
It seems you might not understand what downvotes are for then. Downvotes are for things that do not contribute to discussion so things like insults or actively dangerous suggestions should be downvoted.
Suggesting what is a very typical path to addiction for addicts is very bad advice and should not be shared. When someone is foolish enough to do so it should be downvoted because the whole discussion is toxic
Freedom of speech as an absolute sounds virtuous until you hit the paradox of tolerance.
Of course it’s not absolute, where did I say otherwise? Straw man.
This just feels like a fancy reference deployed to back up intolerance.
They never made a straw man argument because they qualify it with the second part that you cut off. Why did you do that?