Ya, a bit, I guess. I just don’t think talking down to someone is ever really a good way to communicate (unless the interaction is in fact adversarial and that’s the whole point). That being said I suppose I also get that sometimes it’s desirable to express exasperation, even if it’s not constructive or polite.
Ok, so I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, and I think your point is very valid and worth saying, but why do you feel the need to start it by being condescending? I’m honestly curious because I feel like I’ve been seeing this a lot on Lemmy.
It’s especially worth noting that “Traditional Chinese Medicine” is a relatively modern invention by the CCP for cultural unity purposes. It takes various pre-scientific practices from all manner of historically disparate places and times in what now constitutes modern day China and pretends that they were always some kind of harmonious whole. Like as if the EU made up something using ancient medical beliefs from Portugal to Romania in order to enforce the idea that Europe was somehow historically a whole and therefore should be today. It’s utter rubbish.
This may be a bit off topic but I can’t help but feel the need to rant whenever TCM is mentioned and hopefully this is informative to someone.
That is assuming of course that all the women who said yes are in fact people being truthful and not creeps 'as-a-black-man’ing.
My dude, you haven’t pissed anyone off here that I can see, you’ve just gotten overly defensive and are seeing slights where there aren’t any. People are disagreeing with you and some may be critical of your responses but that doesn’t mean anything is heated. Maybe take a short break from Lemmy and get a glass of water or something? I mean that with 100% sincerity. If you’re interpreting these comments as hateful you’re probably in a bad headspace and I’m doubtful the internet is going to help.
I mean, I think that’s just called science
Well, because it financially supports scammers preying on people is why not. And many medical scams aren’t harmless or innocent or may give people a false sense of wellness that can lead to them avoiding real medicine.
Yes and no. I can’t speak to the particulars of this situation but differences in means matter even if they currently produce the same outcome. A toothless dog and a dog in a muzzle are different in important ways.
I’m not a doctor or even well read on the subject but my understanding is that: a) it’s not, and b) it’s a rather different texture/stiffness.
I entirely agree, and that does sound like a good approach. I just caution against presenting recycling as a solution rather than as a reduction of harm.
You often can’t though unfortunately. Most plastics can only be recycled a handful of times before they degrade too far. Recycling, while better than nothing, is a far more inefficient and flawed process than it is often presented as. That’s why it is far better to reduce usage in the first place and reuse things as is where you can. Of course this is all still easier said than done.
It’s not a competition, they can both be shit.
It is terribly worded, so it’s unnecessarily confusing and unclear, but it means ‘nobody says (or does) anything’, thus indicating that the second action is unprompted.