I agree with that sentiment.
I'd add, however, that it's worth being sure someone is not into you before giving up. If you ask someone out and they say no, the only damage is to your pride. Also, while no does mean no, you can work with a little bit of yes.
My wife said no to me the first three times I asked her out. She then said yes, but on the date spent half an hour telling me why she didn't think much of me, along the lines of thinking I was an a player, chasing all the women, and so on. I told her that she didn't have me right, and said we should date again. She said not to call her at all. I said, how about I call you in two weeks? She said okay, call me in two weeks, except you won't. So I call her in two weeks, second date goes a lot better.
And yeah, we've been married twelve years now, and have three beautiful kids.
So be sure that she's definitely not interested first. But if she's definitely not interested, then move the hell on. To add to the above story, there's also half a dozen girls who I liked and dated before my wife, a couple of whom I could swear blind that I would never love anybody else. But the feeling wasn't mutual, and so I moved the hell on.
Man, I wished it worked out for me like that. My deepest connection with my best friend happened at my most awkward time and by the time I had found the guts to ask her out she wasn’t interested and got my first no. She said it was because I wasn’t healthy or fit. I then ate better, trained and completed a marathon and asked again she still said no. I then became an “adult” house, car, great career and she still said no. Finally she said she just wasn’t physically attracted to me.
Big pride hit, but yeah once you get “the final no” (sounds creepy but obviously context is key) its honestly relieving.
Oof. Sometimes it works out that way.
On the upside, along the way you got fit, you got your life sorted, and you managed to escape a relationship with someone who seems altogether too demanding. :)
ON THIS DAY JULY THE FIFTEENTH, TWO-THOUSAND AND NINETEEN, the medieval monarchy and the noble houses of Portingale are hereby abolished and disbanded. In its place shall sprout a democracy. Hand in hand, the PEOPLE will build a prosperous future for Portingale.
In the meantime, an interim government has been established. The transitionary period shall last until the people’s civil rights and political freedoms are positively reformed.
The socioeconomic disaster that is prohibition is all the argument against the latter that is really needed. I just suspect that "medicinal" is something that the white ruling class makes up when they adopt a new habit and need a ready excuse. "Hey-o, remember how we used this as an excuse to incarcerate people of color just because? Whelp, little Paisley has developed a habit, sooo.....turns out it was 'medicinal' the whole time!"
The Drug War and "Medicinal" kinda strike me as two sides of the same steaming pile.
The fallout of Prohibition was more just proof of how addictive alcohol was and how many alcoholics there are. It revealed a sick society that needed help if so many were ready to throw their life away over a drink.
I mean, if someone said Soda is illegal you wouldn’t catch me drinking it despite me liking it a lot. So lets not pretend Prohibition is an adequate example of why we shouldn’t have regulations.
Isn't it interesting how people could legally obtain "medicinal" liquor during Prohibition? People could also legally make their own wine and beer for personal use. It is truly unfortunate that in much of today's US growing cannabis for personal use can get you raided by militarized police followed by being sentenced to a stay in a private prison where you will spend your time doing slave labor for corporations.
That is not quite equivalent. Alcohol is a toxic and physically addictive drug (I used to be an alcoholic and had to transition off of it using Librium so I would not have seizures and/or DTs AKA potentially fatal complications). Cannabis may not be benign but it is not physically addictive nor are natural cannabinoids toxins. Enough people like to use one/both of these substances to lead to organized crime groups making a lot of money. Also, the racial disparities in US drug arrests (source: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0309web_1.pdf ) are especially concerning due to how our prison-industrial system works.
So the Issue was low birth rates (not sure why that must be problem, but whatever), and, aiming to always increase personal freedoms, I went with this "solution":
“Excuse me, some of us don’t want kids.” cries well-known career-woman, Ariel Clinton. “I’ve worked hard to get to where I am in my life right now, and I will not sacrifice my career and my ambitions to breed some snotty-nosed kids. Pregnancy is hard work too; nobody should be put through that. I hear that new vat-technology is doing wonders in other places. If you desperately need new brats, why don’t you just grow them all in a lab and leave us poor women out of it completely?”
The result: sexual intercourse was banned, sex education was done away with, and my civil rights dropped from 93 to 86. I get that "it's a game" and "lol sometimes decisions have unintended consequences," but what the hell? It's like opting to A. bake a cake as opposed to B. baking cookies and subsequently dying the following day at work because a filing cabinet toppled over and crushed you, whereas if you had gone with the cookies, you would have taken up origami the following winter break as a way to pass the time.
How does choosing that, by any plausible extension, ban sex, ban teaching about sex, and take away from civil rights? O.M.G.
I despise that issue, because of that terrible effect chain. I complained about it fairly vehemently in the Unusual Issue Effects thread, and was told that "leave women out of it" meant banning sex. I believe they added or tweaked a word or two in response to my gripes, but it remains an absurd result, and not in the good way this game usually aims for.
most of the issues aren't themselves the problem,
its that there are logical, almost obvious answers to most of them, that are almost never allowed as an option.
although yes, some of the interpretations, of the effects of some if not all of the options that are offered,
are almost completely illogical and reduculous.
as if they were written by well indoctrinated rich children,
who were gullible enough to still believe in trickle down as a real thing that would actually work.
the error of course is rooted in the presumed role of monetary economics in culture and environment.
i mean a presumed role very much at odds with that actually played.
this may be rooted somewhat in max/violet's own perspectives on the matter.
though it comes also, as do the issues themselves, from players attempts to interject a sense of dry humor.
i don't mean to condemn that as a game, for those who understand that's what they're playing,
but still, it is not quite the simulation, one prehapse a little more realistic, i would prefer to be playing.
one in which, as in real life, its not the little green pieces of paper that are unhappy.
Over 50% of deaths in my nation are because they got lost in the environment. Is there a way to lower this without destroying the environment?