Categorisation and labeling are incredibly helpful in some contexts.

It conveys a contextual set of parameters without having to explain each one in detail every time it comes up.

Using categories and labels to be an arsehole is the fault of the arsehole not the tool.

I understand there is nuance here, categories can be detrimental to certain kind of thinking because they make it easy to stay inside the box.

But no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As with a lot of things, it's contextual and subjective.

In my , personal experience, it depends partly on what of therapy methods will work for the current you and partly on chemistry/connection.

Like aromantic dating, you might hit it off immediately, you might go through x number of potentials before you find one that works.

I currently seem to respond best to conversation partner dynamics, like brain rubber ducking with add-ons.

Previously i've not responded well to that at all, and purely analytical detached professionalism was the way in.

so TL;DR;

For me it's:

• General Vibe
• Perceived competence (actual competence is important, but it's no help if you don't believe they are competent)
• Actual Competence
• And further down the line, results.

In that order.

Each one is required to get to the following stage.

As for how it actually feels, i got nothing, that's partly why the therapy in the first place.

I think they are kind of like a production house with an additional kickstarter backing thing, or small individual investors of some other kind, i'm not sure.

Here is the wiki

Their programming is pretty faithy, have a look at the lineup and you'll see from the titles.

I don't care much for that genre, but i don't see it as that much different than any other genre, it's just not for me.

What i will say is that their productions are the faith based equivalent of straight to vhs action movies.

It's generic dross with meh writing and some reasonable production values.

but that's just my opinion, perhaps it's worth a shot if you're into that kind of genre.

If you don't know any examples, how will specificity help ?

from which dialect is "did you born" ?

There can be vast differences in reading comprehension and contextual tone recognition.

As an easy example think of the many degrees of neurodivergency.

Secondly, British sarcasm and indeed a lot of British communication in general comes from the intention to be deliberately vague, so as to bake plausible deniability in to the responses given.

It can be inferred, but it's not a guarantee.

That being said this guy seems to just be a prick trying to walk back something that blew up in his face.

genuine question.

I was of the impression that one of the major selling points of de-federated services such as this was to not have to engage in circumvention to get around policies and rules that you don't agree with.

If you don't agree with the administration of an instance then don't use that instance (or start your own and de-federate that instance i suppose).

Dialogue about the policies and subjective opinion makes sense, if that's how you want to engage, but the somewhat decentralised nature of the fediverse make someone power tripping as an admin on an instance is easy enough to avoid by just not engaging.

More succinctly , why would you want to expend effort to be part of an instance that foundationally doesn't align with your values.

To put it another way, a mod doing their utmost to create an echo chamber of their liking (no matter how distasteful that liking might be) is allowable within the bounds of how this was all designed, the system working as intended.

Whereas creating multiple accounts to avoid bans, while technically possible, seems kind of outside of the intended process.

I could be very wrong about how all this works however, as my grasp of the intricacies is somewhat shallow.

If you've got nothing to hide you don't have to worry ?

edit : For clarification, i consider "If you've got nothing to hide you don't have to worry" to be a naive argument, at best, in any privacy conversation, but I'm not averse to a well-reasoned argument to the contrary.

The wording here was unclear, what i mean to ask was:

"do you believe If you've got nothing to hide you don't have to worry ?"

Thats the one same difference

Not really, one has religious connotations the other doesn't.

We society and depends on how u look at history and ur interpretation of the purpose of government itself

My interpretation is different, but not any less subjective than yours, so fair enough.

What do u think?

I think that your argument implies that your right to smoke in the smokers section is greater than someone else's right to not have to ingest second hand smoke from you smoking in the smokers section.

U cant just proclaim something to be true.

That's fair and i worded my argument somewhat poorly, I'll clarify what i meant in the next sections.

You dont have to go to the pub and expose yourself to the risks associated alcohol, drunk idiots, dumb cunts, covid riddled mouse breathers, adverse political opinions, suspiciously sticky floors etc.

This is true for all.

In the context of the original statement, what i meant to say was the argument “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” holds about as much weight as people saying "well they can just smoke when they get home", technically yes but we are talking about situations where both parties are in attendance.

Whats the level of acceptable risk i would imagine that smoke distributes in accordance with the inverse square law so perhaps simply requiring a little extra “buffer space” would reduce said risk within acceptable tolerances.

That is also my understanding, but that assumes a completely neutral space with no directional blowing, no obstacles etc, also a lot of smoking areas aren't exactly as "outside" as they could be.

I'm not arguing the level of acceptable risk either way , i have no idea and i'd imagine its heavily subjective.

Look i see where ya coming from but i definatly feel this is the slightly thicker than last time end of the wedge that the nany state is never gonna stop hammering.

Oh absolutely, even if it wasn't bullshit posturing and political grandstanding it's a far cry from the most effective thing they could be doing to alleviate the "huge burden" on the NHS.

God given rights comes from the American Constitution

It does not, purposely so.

It was purposely put there because it is undeniable for all people that it applies equally (Well, except for the whole slavery thing, but the Americans aren’t that bright).

Perhaps you mean unalienable rights (which was in the declaration of independence iirc), but yes afaik it was supposed to apply to all people equally.

We decided that it was better for the society to take away some liberties to increase the total amount of liberties for all people.

Who's we and when was this decided ?

If we are to take away someone’s liberty without increasing the total liberty for all people, then we have reduced the total amount of liberty in the world, which I would argue is backwards of the ultimate goal.

That is logically incorrect (reduce one persons liberty points by 10, add 5 liberty points each to 2 people and liberty equilibrium is maintained) but i think i know what you are getting at.

Assuming everyone's idea of the ultimate goal is "liberty for all" is also a stretch.

That's an entirely different conversation though.

The smokers zones were a result of the original crackdown on smoking in public places, the government decided and it sounds like you followed along.

That this new change goes further than you are personally comfortable with doesn't make the previous change any less a governmental decree.

Let's assume however that you do have some universal right to smoke in the smokers section:

Is this the only universal right that exists ?

Do other people not have a right to not be forcibly exposed to known carcinogens ?

To pre-empt the "but they don't have to be near the smokers" argument, yes, they do.

A pub garden isn't magically warded to keep the smoke out of the air of non-smokers.

That is a good question, I know where the button is for the website (it's in the sidebar, in my UI it's green) but the app im using doesn't have an obvious button

Second, at least here in Germany Telegram has become the main platform for conspiracy nuts and antidemocratic organizations. Someone who is “very active” on Telegram is most certainly an idiot.

Bet the majority of them drive cars as well.