The way I remember that Affect is active. You affect things. Effect is passive, and is the result of something. Affect is a verb (and I think sometimes can be a descriptor). Effect is always a noun. So you can have the resulting effect of an experiment, but if you mess with some variables, you have affected the effect.

Though, in this case, you’re turning the noun into a verb, so you could make the case for either use I think. If you hyphenate it though you can leave it as is without thought. "Streisand-effecting.

Years ago I had a CEO of the company I worked at make a similar comment; “affect/effect. No one really knows which one to use.” So my contrarian, anti-authority ass just looked it up right then and decided to always know.

I don’t know that many people say that because of the story though. It created many of the cinematography methods we still use today. Before it, movies were generally just recreating stage plays in front of a camera. Every scene a stationary shot framing the whole room. No real transitions. For Citizen Kane they tore apart the roof and floor to allow for a camera to get moving shots zooming into a scene and angles not often used before. It changed the way people thought of movies and what they could be. People do love watching the slow decline of the powerful, but that movie is considered one of the best movies for other reasons.

To use your alcoholic analogy. Imagine you were a terrible alcoholic and you decide to get better. Great! But you can’t STOP drinking. Not completely. You have to stop drinking too much while also NEEDING to have 2-3 single drinks a day to survive. So every day. Every. Single. Day. Multiple times a day you have to face that temptation. Your brain and body are craving you down a fifth of vodka when you wake up, but you’re only supposed to drink a watered down Bloody Mary instead. You have to taste that vodka and get a tiny bit of that dopamine hit from it, but you just have to stop. Your kitchen is full of liquor bottles, but you have to just wait until lunch to have your next drink with that craving eating away at you.

And then you hit the breakroom at lunch to sip on your small shot of whiskey you brought from home, but the breakroom is a cocktail bar and everyone around you is downing a couple pints of lager or a Long Island Ice Tea. There’s an open bar right there! Plenty of drinks easily available and your mind is begging you to just go get some. But you’re not abstaining completely. You just have to sit there and sip on your tiny bit of alcohol and that’ll just be enough.

For your nightly drink, you always take it at home. You can’t go to a restaurant with anyone, or even by yourself. You can’t order in. The smallest drinks they serve is a full pint. And still, while you down that Manhattan as quickly as you can every night so as not to think about it too much, you have to go to your kitchen to prepare it with the shelves full of liquor. And just have that one drink. Everyone else gets to have a few drinks a day and move on with their life, but for you every meal is a fight to not go off the deep end while dipping your toes just a little into the pool.

And then tomorrow you have to wake up and do it again.

And every day for the rest of your life.

And that’s just me trying to appeal to your empathy, assuming you have any. There’s science that shows that the dopamine (or maybe serotonin, I always get them confused) that food addicts get is just as addictive as a hard drug habit. It’s literally the same thing. That’s why drugs feel good. It’s not just the altered state that’s addictive. The chemicals your brain release when it gets these things make you crave more. Some people’s brains light up from eating some foods. It’s the same thing as a drug habit, but you can’t quit. Ever. There’s science to back up how wrong you are. You just don’t have to deal with it and you can’t imagine how anyone could have different experiences than you.

You know, I’ve met a few people that I was told were lawyers before meeting them and I was surprised at how kind and empathetic they were. Then, as we would get to talking, inevitably it would come out and they’d say “Oh, I don’t practice anymore. That shits horrible.”

Every lawyer I’ve met that still practices is 100% dead inside and I’ve never felt like I could trust them. Maybe there are lawyers that break this mold, but I am going to baselessly assume they are only a few years from getting out because a good person can’t survive in that world.

The thing is, if the place you’re getting your information from doesn’t list it’s sources, you can’t trust it. Whenever I’m researching a thing on the internet and I find an article or a paper, I don’t just stop there, I check where they got their info, then I find that source and read it. I follow it all the way back until I find the primary source.

Like the other day I was writing a paper about a particular court case. In the opinions, as in most cases, they use precedent and cite prior cases. So I found the other cases that referred to the thing I was writing about, and it turns out they were also just using prior cases. I had to go 6 deep before I found them referencing the actual constitution for one of them. On another I found it interesting that the most recent use case was so far removed from what the original one was about and it was could probably be questionable to even use it as precedent if they had used the original instead of another case.

Anyway, the point is, always check sources. If anyone says anything on the internet, assume it’s just their opinion until you check and follow the sources…

You raise some good points about VTTs, but on the other side, I’ll say that it also provides some tools that can make an immersive experience easier. I DM’d the first time on roll20 and got really into it.

We were doing Phandelver and I made a bunch of custom maps to supplement the default because it allowed me to have different music for each map so I didn’t forget to change it for atmosphere.

I uploaded a bunch of custom .pngs for tokens and stuff on maps.

Made handouts for monsters and important NPS so the players had a better picture of it than the small tokens.

Sound effects for events.

You can set dark vision and view distance for each character so you don’t have to keep track of who can see what.

You can put AC and HP on tokens for players and enemies only viewable by the DM for easy tracking.

You can have tokens hidden on the map that only the DM sees and can change the layer when the trap is sprung.

It actually made my fist time running a game a lot easier and the tools enabled me to be more creative as I found new things I could do. Also, I’m bad at voices so I got a voice changer program and it was much better for them than my poor attempts at sounding creepy or scary.

Because that individual doesn’t have the power to enforce their personal freedom. The Principal does have the power to enforce their idea of what the “correct” look is. The principal isn’t concerned about raising conditions for the group in actuality, they just want reality to conform to their idea of what they desire it to be. For them, it’s within their rights to their own freedom to bring everything that makes them uncomfortable to heel. Anything that they don’t like is an affront to their personal freedom to make everyone do what they want.

I said this elsewhere, but I’ll say it here too. Your girlfriend should not have to adapt to society to feel less socially awkward. The world needs to be more accepting of people with issues like that. It shouldn’t be socially awkward. It should be okay for her to just say “Hey, sorry, I don’t recognize faces without context. Where do I know you from?”

I had a friend years ago with aphasia and I would help them out when we’d meet by telling them what I’d be wearing and be on the look-out for them so I could walk up to them and they wouldn’t have to pick me out of a crowd. I’d also usually greet them with my name. They were really good at identifying voices usually, but the small effort was always appreciated, and it’s not that hard.

Their aphasia also extended beyond faces, so they would often have problems finding their car if they didn’t park in the same place, so they would take a picture of the car and some landmark near by. They would show me the pictures so I could help them find it.

What I’m saying is, is we as a society are going to be social to this great of a degree, where we interact with dozens of people, we need to learn to make it a place where everyone can also be involved as they are, not force them to conform to impossible standards for them.

Poor working memory is a huge ADHD trait. What the world needs is to drop the expectation of remembering names. ADHD, either as just a natural thing that the human brain does sometimes or as a result of other factors, is becoming an increasingly prevalent thing among a growing portion of the population. Yet the world is not built to accommodate people with it. Medication and therapy help, but the issues never really go away, and the solution in most cases shouldn’t be to “fix” those with ADHD to make them more “normal,” but to make the world into a place where they too can function. And this goes for anything neuro-divergent, obviously. We should get rid if the idea of making different people into “normal” people and instead make society a place where everyone can be accepted and function along side everyone else.

Sorry, I ranted a bit there…

Ooh! I’ve got a thing about this!

In an Episode of the Youtube series Under the Blacklight, David Blight, a Yale professor brought something up that I think brings the American idea of “freedom” into a different context. He says “This whole new idea of what’s liberty and liberty for whom, can also kill. Especially when it replaces the idea of Liberty as that which has to be shared in some kind of common good.”

The idea isn’t really new and is actually deeply rooted in America’s past through to it’s creation. Freedom should be a group concept in which we maximize freedom for the populace. Instead it’s seen as individual freedom only. When you combine this with the idea that freedom is the most important thing, it results in people coming to the conclusion that they are justified in anything in the process of attaining what they want. And they’ll use whatever tools they have available to attain this in as straight a path as they can.

America has always been a champion of personal freedom, whatever they say. It’s founding was about a bunch of business men who didn’t want to pay taxes so they staged a rebellion. There’s still a heavy bent against taxes with the main argument being people don’t want the government to have any power, but really it’s because individuals just want to keep their money while disregarding the ways in which that money would improve the good for all people. At it’s core America is a Selfish nation built of selfishness and getting yours before someone else takes it.

It gets more a little complicated when talking about motives of those in power, but boils down to the same, and they retain that power primarily by banging the “personal freedoms” drum.

To quote famed Discworld philosopher Granny Weatherwax,

“There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.” “It’s a lot more complicated than that–” “No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.” “Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes–” “But they starts with thinking about people as things…”

Thank you for coming to my TED talk

in Kate Manne’s “Down Girl,” about misogyny she wrote: “They put women in their place when they seem to have ‘ideas beyond their station.’”

“Misogynist hostility encompasses myriad ‘down girl’ moves . . . to generalize: adults are insultingly likened to children, people to animals or even to objects. As well as infantilizing and belittling, there’s ridiculing, humiliating, mocking, slurring, vilifying, demonizing sexualizing or, alternatively desexualizing… and other forms that are dismissive and disparaging in specific social contexts.”

Emphasis mine to point out the most relevant portions in this case. It’s a solid read on misogyny that I definitely recommend to anyone.

When I was 15 and learning to drive my dad lived in Atlanta. I went there for a visit once and he had me drive there, and everywhere for the whole week. My first experience driving on an interstate included going 90 around the perimeter full of other cars going faster than me and requiring getting from one onramp and moving over 4 lanes to get tot he next exit in half a mile. It was terrifying and I definitely cut waaayyy too many people off driving into town and I’m shocked I didn’t cause a wreck. That was always his teaching style, just throwing me into the deep end. It’s still burned into my brain as one of the most dangerous things I’ve done (And that’s a long list). But, when I had to go into my drivers ed class the following school year I was the only one who was at all comfortable on the interstate and one of the best drivers in the class.

I don’t recommend teaching things that way and I’d never do that with my children, but damn was it effective since I didn’t die. Not dying was probably a close call though.

“anti” also doesn’t mean opposite, it means against. The roots of the word, tracing back to the Greek, means against. As it does in French and it’s Sanskrit version. All forms of it mean opposed to. This is why language is important and some checks should be there to counter the “language is malleable” argument that people use as an excuse to not learn how to use words correctly. The idea that anti means opposite has been around as long as I can remember, and definitely longer than that, but it drastically changes the meaning of words.

But it’s great to put on a list of reasons for gun control! Most seem to agree that him responding to a perceived threat violently was acceptable, but he shouldn’t have used a gun. But if he’s legally carrying, then it sounds like the biggest threat here was the access to firearms. Maybe access to a pocket sized kill button is harmful to society?

This guy felt threatened. If it’s any of the gun-owners in this thread and they have no context and feel threatened, I’m sure they’d hate having people call for their imprisonment because they thought they were doing the right thing to protect themselves and it turns out they made the wrong call.

I agree with you. This is responsible use of firearms. This is just what responsible gun ownership looks like. It’s a machine who’s only purpose is to kill. The best outcome is trying but failing to kill someone. The most likely outcome is someone is dead. That’s how guns work.