Yup! Plenty of smart folks have written about it

You can try going to your local library as a sort of practice. They also have events and not just books (though getting book recommendations is way better than AI!)

Get involved in a hobby that has a welcoming community: photography, book clubs, cooking classes, running clubs, maker spaces, etc. If you really believe you have agoraphobia, consider speaking with a therapist (most work over video chat).

Set transaction limits on their cards

Try changing cities

Yes. Even if it’s not a reliable indicator, people still associate the em dash with ai and it’s simpler to use it less than to explain

You might be better off following individual artists you like and buying from whatever shop they use. It’ll be the best way to tell

Yeah a bit

This is a silly argument. There are killings that make international news. There are killings that make Swedish news. He doesn’t comment on any of them, only when a far right agitator dies in America is it suddenly important to him.

Kirk wanted ppl to die for their race, gender, and other things that weren’t even opinions. While Kling’s statement is technically fair, he didn’t speak out for anyone else. Why weigh in on a white supremacist, transphobe who made many ppls’ lives worse?

He commented directly on the Charlie Kirk situation. If he jumps in, he will have to deal with people’s reactions

Write out your goals for the conversation and also what you plan to say. Talk about events and how they made you feel. You can acknowledge your and her responsibility, but don’t make blame the focus.

And then you add more primary sources to your RSS reader

News organizations are businesses and need you to spend time reading their content. They won’t simply link you out to the primary source without some reporting. If you want white house executive orders, just go to the white house page and pop it in an RSS reader https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-orders/

Unfortunately, what people call a space doesn’t necessarily correspond to how you will experience it, or even reality. Always trust your own read of things.

Your suggestions are good! With that much time, you can do things that interest you and things that might be useful to you.

Learning about finances (if you haven’t already) might help you plan your future. Learning about subjects that interest you will be fun. Take out library books. Maybe take time to draw or take photos, knit, something creative?

Maps is a big one

His legacy is organizing to bring white supremacist anti-lgbtqia+ rhetoric more mainstream via the Republican party. He organized to oppress people.

Theoretical weakness:

Anti-natalism is a deeply pessimistic take on the possibilities of the human experience. Where, once, people looked to push the boundaries of humanity’s knowledge and experience (e.g. psychedelic drugs, space exploration, art movements, radical politics), this movement sees the scale as so heavily tipped towards suffering that the bit of joy and wonder we experience is not even worth it. Its calculus looks to me to be similar to Effective Altruism, because it measures all the suffering to come for the unborn as a greater infinity than all the good they will experience. It simply offers a different conclusion: instead of putting those at the top of the hierarchies in our world in charge reducing/ending suffering (a solution I supply disagree with), AN instead just wants life to end because reducing suffering enough can’t be done.

To me, this leaves no room for the possibility of changing the human experience for the better. If we’re just trying to do some accounting as to whether it’s worth having kids on a societal scale, couldn’t we make it worth it? Instead of extinction, why not try radically different ways of organizing society to get rid of the hierarchies that create most of our suffering? One lesson i take from the history i’ve been around for is that the status quo only lasts for so long.

Finally, the idea of unborn people not having consented to birth is odd. They do not exist, so they have no desires, needs, or ability to consent. We can equally say they don’t “consent” to non-existence and are stuck there until they are born. When life first came into existence in the universe, was consent involved?

Practical weakness:

If this movement ever goes beyond a purely voluntary movement, to the point of enacting policy or attempting to prevent births in any way, it will become monstrous very quickly. Every such program will face resistance and, without an anti-carceral component to the movement, will have governments (or roving mobs) criminalizing birth, sterilizing people, and destroying the infrastructure of child care. At their most extreme, “anti-natalist” movements could advocate for the murder of every single person on earth, because that would be the surest way of preventing birth. All of these things would multiply the suffering of everyone, but would be “justifiable” in their eyes because it would “prevent the suffering” of innumerable people to be born in the future. Would global nuclear war achieve their goal?

https://www.chase.com/personal/credit-cards/education/basics/virtual-credit-cards see if your bank offers virtual credit card numbers