It’s still incredible to me that there were democrats that insisted that Biden had possibly the best debate performance ever.

Holy shit, are we siblings?!

Ahhh, gotcha. Well, maybe you’re on to something there.

Yes, but after he’d already done as much damage as he could, not when he received a personal invitation.

I mean, he was right. Peeking at the history of the 1970s energy crises, it looks like it was the right medicine at the right time. I think maybe the problem was threefold:

1. Asking Americans to be uncomfortable. By this point, I’m sure it was already a preposterous proposition, especially to boomers, who were the first generation that grew up with mainstream car culture. They also grew up accustomed to a very high standard of living compared to their predecessors.

2. It looks like the energy crisis only continued to worsen as the US went into the election. That probably didn’t help. I’m not sure how much of that was the result of Carter’s actions here, but I’m guessing that this speech left him very little room to displace responsibility.

3. Too much too fast. Especially given that there’d already been an energy crisis before his presidency, it seems like it would have been prudent to start working towards some of these goals well in advance of crunch time. By the time 1978 rolled around, he was (we were) already under the gun.

Would you agree that’s accurate?

I don’t think I take your meaning

That’s one take. I don’t think it’s wrong, necessarily, but I watched that debate on YouTube. I agree with Carter, I would have voted for Carter, but Reagan completely wiped the floor with him in terms of communicating to the audience. Carter got up there and gave a lecture, Reagan got up there and sold everybody on a cool new pack of cigarettes.

I hate that Reagan is supposed to be the benchmark here. That motherfucker set us on this path all those years ago by abandoning the great society view; there’s so much that’s fucked in the US today that can be traced back to him. The only thing I’ll ever give him good credit for is his opposition to nuclear weapons.

That sounds pretty normal to me. Though, in total fairness, I’m ADHD myself, so I feel a lot of what you’ve been saying here. Especially being hyper aware of the social meta. I’ve also learned a lot of advanced masking over the years. Yeah, definitely, if you’re at a social event and someone catches your interest, just start with going and meeting them. Introduce yourself, and a small heartfelt compliment doesn’t hurt, “hey, that was a good question, I wish I’d thought of that”, for example. Also, asking low-risk questions about other people is a good way to endear them to you, “is this your first time going to this class/club? Oh? What got you interested in it?” Etc. These are all pretty good ways to start getting a conversation going so you can get a feel for that person. If it turns out you like that person, you can always offer to trade contact info so you can keep talking, or ask if you could meet somewhere (specific like “the library” or “that coffee shop”) public at a specific time to chat; people tend to be more receptive if you have something specific you want to chat about, even if it’s “getting to know you”. It’s also usually better to put that off until after a second encounter in public, I think. Last, If they ask if it’s a date, be up front, only say “no” or “it doesn’t have to be” if you really mean it. Ofc, YMMV. Best of luck!

The main difference is that they’re there specifically for the social experience. These folks are not going there to date you, no, but they are going there to socialize, so the barriers to socializing with strangers are greatly lowered. Maybe don’t just go there with dating front and center in your mind; instead focus on just meeting and getting to know people.

So, this is one of the unfortunate traps of our time, especially if you live in a place with car dependent sprawl. Women don’t want to be solicited while at work or on personal business (groceries, gym, etc), and, really, nobody does. You want to work at work, and you want to do your business and go home otherwise. This goes doubly or triply so for complete strangers. There’s really no third places (as they’re called) left, where people go for the express purpose of being social and together. That’s what’s missing here. As someone else said, you are, unfortunately, both a little right.

It’s particularly bad in places like the US that have car dependent sprawl because

• cities often have had their zoning ordinances weaponized by NIMBYs, and it’s probably outright illegal to have a small cafe or shop in your neighborhood, or they’re required to have some outrageous parking minimum or something like that.

• driving sucks more than you may be aware of while you’re doing it. If you have to get into your car to go to the grocery, you don’t want to make five stops at smaller grocers throughout the week; you’d rather just make one big stop at the big box mart and just go tf home. If you want to stop at a cafe, well, just swing through the starbucks drive through so you don’t have to be bothered with getting out.

Well, chances are that most of your interactions at chain businesses and stores are anonymous, so you’re not meeting other people in your community there, you’re not creating any bonds or relationships there, you’re doing your business and getting out, which, frankly, is what they want. You’re especially not making any friends in the drive thru line. For nearly seventy years now, we’ve built our cities to be homes to cars, not people, and it’s bearing fruit in the form of the loneliness epidemic.

My advice to you would be to go out of your way to find situations where people are getting together for the purpose of being social or having fun. Look for classes put on by your local city parks, go check your local library’s bulletin board for events, check social media communities for your nearby city or town for groups that meet regularly. If you’re religious, seek out some religious institutions that you find palatable.

Because it’s our money for the whole family, and we carry the scars of having had to ask for credit card limit increases to buy gas to get to work to pay the credit card.

“We care about efficiency and the budget”

“Cool, so we could move way more people at a fraction of the cost if we built this passenger rai-”

“Woah there buddy, you didn’t actually believe that stuff I said about the budget and efficiency, did you?”

Oh, I knew the feds had cancelled grant money to it, I didn’t know the state killed it. I know they’re all in the pocket of big oil, but it’s just wild to me how trains are apparently woke.

Well, you’ve got to start somewhere. CAHSR has been the impetus for a lot of sprawled out central valley cities to get their shit together. Fresno is probably the prime example of this. We’re trying to drag Merced into getting its shit together, though kicking and screaming it may be.

If it was a new interstate or an extra lane on the Katy freeway, nobody would be saying shit. My favorite example is how there’s in interstate project in the northeast that’s pretty much as overbudget as CAHSR and basically nobody is talking shit about it.

I don’t really care that they’re running .ml. It’s fine if it bothers you enough to not donate to them, that’s your business. My SO is never going to agree to let me donate to Lemmy, so I’m going to see if I can eek out some time to learn the codebase and contribute that way.

Eh, if you want to contribute to Lemmy development, then contribute. If you don’t, then don’t. I think a good 70% of this is people giving themselves an out for financially contributing to something they get a lot of free utility out of. I’m here to tell you that you don’t need to make up excuses; don’t contribute if you don’t want to, but understand that means that the devs might have to move on from Lemmy development and prioritize other work.

I just want to get my city’s bike infrastructure to the point where my SO doesn’t tell me I can’t ride to the grocery store because some MF will almost certainly run me over.

RIP