My point is I see such matters differently than when I was young. — Athena

As well you should! The advantage of aging (provided one still has all of one's marbles) is that we gain perspective on what we learned and experienced when we were young, and added on up to the present. New learning and new experiences contribute to the sharpness of our perception.

Most older people become more conservative -- not necessarily in the political sense of the term. Aging bodies have to be more careful, lest they fall and break bones. Perception isn't quite as sharp. Our productive years are over, so we are operating on stored resources. We can't afford (figuratively and literally) to take big risks.

Because old people have been around for a few decades they have seen some bright ideas that did not pan out, while some tried and true methods did work (and visa versa). The result is more caution.

The term alcoholic isn't commonly used any more. — Tom Storm

Professionals in a field use less vernacular terms. "Alcoholic" is a one-size-fits-all term, and a "shopping addict" is quite different from the "meth addict" I would imagine.

I tend to find people may recover if they have meaningful alternatives to get involved in and can reimagine themselves as non-drinkers. — Tom Storm

I like that. It's positive.

I've known quite a few alcoholics, ones in recovery as well as men who were busy becoming alcoholic. AA has been helpful to some, but not all. It is at least not part of the commercial treatment industry, which Minnesota has a lot of. Too many of the programs have revolving doors. Clearly some of them are more successful as money makers than as behavior change agents. Maybe 1% of the chronic inebriates were "happy drunks". The rest were miserable.

A couple of phrases I like: "Therapy means change, not adjustment." "He not busy being born is busy dying" Bob Dylan (It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding)

...the hollow horn
Plays wasted words, proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying

One of my brothers died from drinking and smoking, and two of his three sons died of alcoholism and drug addiction. My brother was an school art teacher and performed his job adequately. His two sons had a much shorter addiction career. The whole family -- mother, father, and 3 sons, had significant MI issues (probably generational). One of the brothers was addicted to benzodiazepine and alcohol; the other was a heavy drinker and pot smoker. Oddly, the third brother managed to get his life together fairly early on and has led a healthier, happier life. He's in his 60s now.

If he does not want help, then he most likely will neither accept, receive, or benefit from it. He'll remain an alcoholic, and will probably die from alcoholism, directly or indirectly.

We could, of course, restrict refractory alcoholics' social freedom (some sort of institutionalization). There are harm reduction programs where alcoholics are cared for and can continue drinking. I like this approach. It recognizes the inability of some alcoholics to quit drinking without discarding them.

We don't know what to do for people who engage in activities that begin voluntarily, become addictions, then terminal conditions. Alcohol isn't the only addiction. There's also opiates and meth among others. Many people view addiction as an individual's moral failure, just as they view morbid obesity as a moral failure. Humans are prone to moral failure no matter what, so virtue is no protection.

rigour — Vera Mont

Are you Canadian?

the best thing would be to reason with him — NOS4A2

Reasoning with an alcoholic... hmmm. How well does that usually work?

What we collectively need to do is recognize alcoholism as a disease and not a moral failure. Diseases can be treated and/or managed. The success rate on treatment isn't great, so more emphasis on management and harm reduction,

During prohibition the supply chain was cut. The Feds were able to shut down brewing and distilling. There were then 4 sources of alcohol: a) Supplies stored before 1920 (wine cellars, liquor cabinets, and the like; things that wealthier people had). b) Do it yourself wine and beer brewing; this was more or less legal, but not altogether satisfactory, depending on skill c) smuggling. The "bootleggers" (some of whom were mafioso) were unable to bring in very large quantities. d) illegally distilled alcohol--often of very poor quality (if not poisonous).

Speakeasys were not on every corner, and bootlegged alcohol was expensive. A much larger percent of the population was rural in 1920, and rural people were more likely to abstain than urban people.

Yes, corruption was THE major consequence of of prohibition. (Interestingly, though, a positive side affect was a mixing of classes, races, and homosexuals in speakeasys that had not previously been possible. After prohibition there was a crackdown on the wide open socializing that had gone on.)

True enough -- the facts on alcohol consumption during prohibition were hazy. And no, the mafia didn't publish monthly sales figures. But there are enough reports to indicate that consumption did shrink. Not everyone was willing to break the law to get a drink. Illegal alcohol was expensive. Getting alcohol required some social intelligence and inconvenience.

Well, we PERHAPS learned our lesson as far as alcohol goes. Banning public smoking but keeping tobacco legal has worked.

Examining information carefully with an eye toward "the truth" is a time-consuming habit, and it can be difficult. There are good reasons why people bypass close examination.

One of the best, inevitably flawed ways we deal with the problem is by building a "system" through which information passes. If--over years' worth of time--we have done a good job, we can detect falsehoods reasonably well. Donald Trump's system (and those of his running dog lackeys) was perversely unable to hit the 2+2=4 level of fact checking.

For me, the potential consequences determine the degree of rigour I need to apply. — Vera Mont

Yes. I can live with the possibility that the can of organic tomatoes might not be all that organic, but I want my biopsy to be done very, very carefully. As for why somebody shot somebody else in a dark alley in Detroit ... well, I'll take the reporter's word for it.

This ad appeared on the page displaying stats on alcohol consumption. Right. What better time to advertise alcohol than when someone is wondering what the stats on drinking are. Nice ad, actually. Cool. I'll have some of that.

As of January, the state tax (where I live) was 3.46 cents per cigarette, or 69.2 cents per package of 20. The city / county (where I live) has an 8% sales tax on most purchases, and the federal government imposes a tax. A pack of Marlboros retails for about $10 or 9 euros. $3.5 of that price is tax.

Tax levels vary a lot by state. The District of Columbia (Washington) taxes $5 per pack; some southern states tax only pennies per pack.

In a quick search, I couldn't find much about tobacco tax revenue by state.

Does prohibition work? It does, to some extent. During the 13 years of alcohol prohibition in the United States (1920-1933) alcohol consumption was reduced significantly. High taxes tend to reduce smoking, but what really worked was banning -- and enforcing -- smoking in public indoor spaces. No more smoking at work, in bars, restaurants, buses, meetings, etc. The percentage of adults who smoke has fallen roughly from 20% to 11%. In Minnesota the rate of adult smoking is 13%. That is good, but 13% means about 450,000 smokers.

A solid majority of Minnesotans (58%) drink. Of those, about 11% had 7 or more drinks on an occasion. (I would be unconscious if I had 7 drinks in an evening.) Minnesotans drink about 2.86 gallons of ethanol per year.

With respect to ethical dilemmas... If we all looked at ethics in the "big picture" view, many? Most of us? would be compromised to some extent. Most of us are tolerant of smoking, drinking, and at least some recreational drug use, even if we don't like it.

It's important to remember that people smoke and drink (and use other drugs) because the effects are pleasant -- at least in the short run. True enough, tobacco and alcohol producers and retailers push their products. But people have been using alcohol and various drugs for thousands of years -- again, because we like the effects that drugs can give us.

Tobacco is beyond question a very harmful substance, pleasant effects notwithstanding. Most people who use tobacco become addicted, and one of the pleasant effects that a cigarette delivers is the relief of the next dose of nicotine. Most people who use alcohol don't become addicted, but occasional drinking can still cause problems for people (making a fool of oneself is the least of it).

The problem with many products, not just tobacco and alcohol, is profits benefit from the drive to maximize consumption beyond what is good for people. "Yankee traders" (New England companies) made some huge fortunes selling opiates to the Chinese in the middle of the 19th century. Opiates were as much of a plague then as they are now. But hey... it was very profitable.

To tobacco, alcohol, weed, meth, cocaine, and opiates one can add sugar and fat -- pushed because it is profitable, even if these substances kill people.

[note: sugar and fat are essential; they are not drugs, they aren't addicting. But when they are cheaper than nutritious food, and ubiquitous, they become problematic.]

When presented with statements, I make a number of critical judgements:

Has the source of the statement previously been reliable?
Is the content of the statement consistent with the context?
Is the statement internally consistent (it doesn't contradict itself)?
Is the content of the statement supported by external information with which I am familiar?
Does the statement violate "common sense"?

What I describe is a 'background mental operation", not a deliberate forensic test for falsehoods. It doesn't necessarily result in "truth". The procedure protects me (to a fair degree) from outright false statements.

"Truth" can require a much more diligent, deliberate effort than merely detecting falsehoods, inconsistencies, irrelevant information, and so forth. Truth = a representation of the world as it actually exists.

Deciding whether "a representation of the world as it actually exists" may require lengthy reflection, a kind of fermentation. Arriving at a "TRUTH" can be disruptive, if old certainties collapse.

An example of a disruptive TRUTH might be the fresh conclusion that it was actually NATO and the European Union that had caused Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The actions of NATO and the EU threatened Russia's security. Instead of NATO and the EU wearing white hats and Ukraine being the victim, it is actually Russia that is the victim, and there is nothing virtuous about NATO, EU, or Ukraine.

I do not believe my example. However, some people believe that Russia is the aggrieved party and that the US and the EU are the aggressors. These people may be looking at the same information that I see. That people arrive at opposite conclusions is one of the problems of looking for THE TRUTH.

A representation of the world as it actually exists will include the contradictions which exist in the real world, but a contradictory truth makes us all unhappy. We want truth to be free of contradiction. Unfortunately.....

n my town? No, you won't. — Vera Mont

I'm glad I don't live in your town,

The OP scenario is a small town, wherein everyone knows that this person is trying to dry out. The store clerk is required to diagnose or pass judgment on anyone. — Vera Mont

I grew up in a very small town; the town owns the hard liquor store (but not the beer joints). Small towns are not necessarily the kinds of places where one can rely on the kindness of strangers--or people you know very well, for that matter. Leaving that little berg was a very happy day.

But the ethical problem isn't solved or simplified by living in a small town--it's just more personal.

Should you sell -- junk food to an obese person?
-------------------- cigarettes to someone with COPD?
-------------------- candy to a diabetic?

In real life, people make a lot of unhealthy choices while shopping. Clerks are not in a position to police the habits and addictions of the community or individuals.

The most solid theory that I know of is that the alcoholic has to decide to avail himself/herself of therapy or quit without help. A liquor store clerk's decision to refuse a sale is not likely to result in much of anything. The alcoholic an always find someone else to buy the liquor for him/her. At the state law level, bartenders can refuse alcohol sales to people who, in their judgement, are visibly drunk and impaired. That's not a necessarily obvious condition. "How drunk is drunk?" When does actionable impairment begin?

If the clerk is concerned, he or she could attempt to help the alcoholic obtain help (AA, detox, in- or out-patient treatment. Be warned, however, that it can require moving heaven and earth to get an addict to quit--especially If they don't want to. Even involuntary treatment is no guarantee of success.

Meaning might be use, but we have to agree on how use means what. That where grammar comes in. Otherwise use is useless in this monstrous meaningless mire in which we wallow. Speaking of which, Shawn hasn't been active for 19 days, I hope he's OK.

Meaningless to who — Philosophim

Meaningless to whom" because 'whom' is the object of the preposition. 'Who' is subjective. In the vast meaningless mess of the cosmos, grammar rules abide.

As for your post, it rates :100:

Because in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters. — niki wonoto

Quite possibly true, but we don't live in the grand scheme of things. We biological beings come and go pretty quickly. In the petite scheme of things, trivial matters tax our ingenuity. Mostly we matter to us, and we find our small-scale doings quite interesting.

Colliding galaxies, super novi, massive black holes, and the heat-death of the universe is "grand scheme" stuff.

Nothing wrong with political prejudices. I assume you're prejudiced against Stalinists? Fascists? Neonazi's? MAGA Republicans believe in some pretty sketchy stuff and I have found them all to be small-minded and cruel. — RogueAI

Stalinists? Check.
Fascists? Check.
Neonazis? Check.
MAGA Republicans? Check.
Neoconservatives? Check.
Neoliberals? Check.
Mafiosos? Check.
Drug cartels? Check.
Capitalists? Check.
Run of the mill crooks? Check.
Drug dealers? Check.
Drug users? Check.
Chronic Alcoholics? Check.
Southern Baptists? Check.
Book Banners? Check.
Illegal immigrants? Check.
Woke Activists? Double Check.
and more!

I am a prejudiced. I am biased, implicitly and explicitly. I love, I hate, I am coldly indifferent. I'm normal.

The 'concept' that there are people who hold no prejudices, who are free of bias, employ no stereotypes in their thinking, and approach every individual and group with an open mind is an absurd falsehood. Neither human societies nor human brains work that way.

I am not a terrible person, nor am I a bigot. What I am is cognizant that I am biased, prejudices, and I do not translate my biases into action. It is better to admit one's biases than deny them and regularly let them loose.

I don't fault Scott Adams for being biased and prejudiced. My assumption is that everyone -- even Baden -- is biased, prejudiced. I fault him for deciding to let his biases loose. (There was nothing spontaneous about his vlog entry.). People in a civil society are not obligated to be bias-free. They are obligated to maintain the membrane between their thoughts and their actions.

@NOS4A2 It doesn't work both ways because the underclass doesn't have many options. The overclass has all the goodies.

I think that I'm prejudiced against white trash neighbors, for example, and I can take action to change that bias. — praxis

In the real world, some people are trashy. Just personally, I don't think anybody is under any obligation to think, believe, or feel positively about them. In the real world, some problems are imposed upon people and some problems are brought on by the people themselves. One can distinguish between the two.

If you live next door to a house where irresponsible, disruptive, and highly annoying people live, why should you not have a negative bias against them?

On the other hand, if the people next door are responsible, cooperative, and polite but you are biased against them because they are lesbians, Hispanics, convicted felons, Asians, Moslems, Blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses, or MAGA Republicans -- whatever they are -- then you should certainly adjust your outrageous sexual, ethnic, convict, religious and political prejudices and hatreds.

A belief isn't necessarily motivating. People are influenced by their biases, if that's what you're trying to say. — praxis

How do you parse out "belief" from "bias"? If I think that blacks are less intelligent than whites, is that a belief or a bias? (fact: I don't think that.). If I think that white trash make bad neighbors, is that a belief or a bias? (I kind of think so.).

How do you parse out what, exactly, is motivating?

Is the difference between being motivated by a belief or a bias a difference that matters?

Bottom-line cancel culture' in full effect is on display. Predictable. Like 'suicide by mod' here on TPF. — 180 Proof

Watching Adams respond to the Rasmusson Poll did seem like a deliberate career-ending act. [It's on YouTube -- The relevant video is in Episode 2027 of Scott Adams vlog, starting at 13:28] He's been doing Dilbert for about 34 years.

The Rasmusson Poll isn't a scam, but it isn't a highly rated polling organization either. Adams peevishness seemed like a 'put on' to me. Why fasten on to a third-rate poll result (automated telephone/internet polling)? His response doesn't seem sufficiently motivated by the poll itself.

I don't know anything about Adams and I've never been very interested in Dilbert. I can't tell whether he was being serious or merely provocative. Did he miscalculate the effect of his provocative statements? Don't know.

I don't much care, either. I don't own any stock in Adams or Dilbert. But provocations like his make it more difficult to have any sort of nuanced response because it drives people into extreme positions.

The hard-core damage of racism isn't done by people like Adams. It's done through national and corporate policies that have highly material consequences. If Adams wants to avoid living in close proximity to blacks, he would be making a choice that a good share of white people have made in the past and still make. The whole post-WWII housing program was a policy of multi-generational racial segregation: Urban core rental apartments for blacks, home ownership in the suburbs for whites. The official policy isn't in effect now, but the effect is on-going, and new instances of racial segregation are also on-going.

Adams saying he was going to live with other white people is hardly a remarkable stance. It's a choice that has been officially facilitated for what -- 50,000,000 American white families? 60,000,000? Many.

Cancelation is an easy response. Ask yourself: Where do the executives of the newspaper chains cancelling Dilbert live? In racially mixed urban cores, or in gated communities? In iffy-conflict zones between wealthy and poor communities, or solidly within wealthy communities?

When it comes to grammar and lexicon, I am not as liberal as @Hanover. (I am as aware as he is that language changes over time.). Yes, I am aware that some people find various aspects of the language oppressive. The business of people being "nonbinary" has been carried way too far. The idea of bi-sexuality is well established; multi-sexuality and multiple genders is, basically, baloney (salchicha de baja calidad. (Did Google translate that properly? Low quality sausage?)

Granted, the variation between strictly heterosexual and homosexual (6 stages, according to Kinsey) the various object choices (what, exactly, turns one on), levels of libido, and various aspects of personality account for lots of individual differences in sexual (or any other kind of) experience. Cooking up a list of dozens of imaginary genders and sexualities is false. No one is under any obligation to recognize anything on the list.

It's another consequence of the postmodern idea of pervasive social construction, as opposed to the operations of biology (or nature). Only by supposing that reality is a social construct can one believe that there are 77 different genders.

My advice to the individuals who find they have highly specialized and esoteric sexuality is "get over it".

What about trans persons? I have known quite a few trans persons. A grand nephew is trans. I'm OK with it, in as much as it isn't my problem to deal with often. Trans personhood involves too much difficulty to be anything other than real (one wouldn't pretend).

I doubt you say the T in doubt — Hanover

Did you mean the B in doubt? Or has Georgia developed an indubitably devious pronunciation of "doub"? Or maybe you just leave the ending consonant off, as in "I dow i".

The Latinate "b" in doubt was deleted by the French. "Doute" came into English sans 'b'. It was inserted into "doute" by early scribes (secretarial monks) based on the Latin spelling of dubitare. This reinsertion of a lost letter in Latin ---> French ---> English is quite unusual.

insanity, with the idea that "gender" is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with natural sex — javi2541997

That's why those with liquified gender, fluid gender, or viscous gender--whatever--have somehow gotten everyone to say "gender assigned at birth". "Assignment" suggests that the identification of gender is arbitrary. 99.9% of the population will identify or recognize gender in a new born by checking out the anatomy of the baby. 99.9% of the time, babies exhibit unambiguous sexual features. Granted, in a quite small share o births, genitals are ambiguous, and further examination is needed.

I had not read your response to Storm, Mont, or Moliere.

As a rational animal, — Vera Mont

Well, maybe, sort of, sometimes, or not.

it is shaped continually by a deliberative act to do so — schopenhauer1

That our existence is a series of deliberate acts is a fiction created by our minds, which SEEM to make decisions based on rational considerations. The fiction is created when desire or need compels our brains to come up with a method to satisfy desire/need. It seem like we sought the solution voluntarily.

Signmund Freud famously said "We are not masters of our own houses." We don't have much intellectual control over the wishes and needs that drive our thinking and behavior. We share this feature with the rest of the animal kingdom to which we belong.

There is a tremendous range of possible outcomes in the way our wishes and needs are, or are not rsolved. This variety adds to the sense of our voluntary invention, but it's not voluntary. Life isn't any less enjoyable (or horrible) because we aren't in charge. Further we can reflect upon our lives, ad come to understand at least some of the terms under which we exist.

BUT, reflective understanding or not, we're still not doing a whole lot 'deliberately'.

We humble homos seek meaning and purpose and in the process project it onto the world and pretend that we have found it! — MojaveMan

We don't "pretend" that we have found meaning and purpose. In a grandly meaningless universe, it's our task to create meaning and purpose. A person may or may not have done a good job creating meaning or purpose.

There are two things which people may fear about death: One is the period of dying -- the final illness. It might be a prolonged period of suffering. The other is being dead, and what the alleged afterlife might involve. Depending on the variety, deeply held religious ideas may intensify this fear.

I'm 76. Death from one cause or another is probably not in the distant future. What comes after death is logically like what comes before birth: nothing. In the meantime, life remains interesting. I don't want to hurry death along.

Thank you. It is my pleasure, Javi. But perhaps we shouldn't abuse this space ... Private messages (INBOX) may be a solution to this. — Alkis Piskas

No, no -- this is interesting. Don't hide your light under an inbox.

@javi2541997

Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language"! — Alkis Piskas

Millions of English speaking Christians grew up "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". Starting back in the 1970s, feminists felt aggrieved and started agitating in the name of "the Creator, the Redeemer, and either the Holy Spirit or 'Sustainer'". OK, so 'ghost' is a bit anachronistic. Is God gendered? Maybe not for some people, but Jesus definitely was male, like it or not. So, after endless bitching and carping, liturgy and hymns have been neutered in many Christian denominations. The changes in wording have resulted in more bitching and carping.

This isn't all bad -- God, after all, has never submitted to a physical examination. The less particularity and fewer specifics we assign to God the better. (Why? Because God is just not like us. "My ways are not your ways" he said.

There is a distinct difference between vernacular English and formal, literary, and academic English. The proper use of language requires speaking and writing in the right register, depending on one's purpose and audience.

An aside: The grammar and vernacular core vocabulary of English is Anglo-Saxon (A-S). Fiction, at least, can be written using the core A-S vocabulary. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is about 85-90% A-S. (The remaining 15% are word derived from French after the Norman Conquest (1066). That makes it very easy reading.

It's very difficult to write anything very complicated in A-S because so much of the old vocabulary was discarded over time, and the Angles and Saxons were agrarian people, not urban sophisticates which is not to say they were dull and stupid.

Referring to Who Stole Feminism?, The War Against Boys and some similar titles...

The following is tangentially related to Latinx. It's about the way in which groups are represented by opinion-making mass media, pictorially as well as in words.

One of the things I have noticed over the last several years -- maybe a decade -- is a change in the way media represent particular groups. Promotional material of colleges often use pictures of women in class, labs, etc. with few men visible. In the US, women do make up a majority of students on many campus. The imbalance of men and women in college seems like a significant problem that isn't being addressed adequately.

Another disproportionate representation is that of gay people. The standard gay couple, or gay group, is more often than not female. Statistically, gay men represent a much larger share of the gay population than gay women--36% male, 19% female--and always have. The largest group in the GLBTQ... salad are bisexuals (40%), of which the largest group are women--29% vs. 11%. Bisexuals don't get a lot of press, one way or the other. Apparently media do not know how to represent them. I don't either.

Transgendered people, in one form or another, are the HOT group in media. The GLBTQ... salad makes up only 5% of the whole population and trans people make up about 5% of the GLBTQ... population, or a very tiny fraction of the whole population. None the less, a lot of articles are written about trans people. One would think, sometimes, that 30,000,000 Americans were thinking of switching genders. It's more like a few hundred thousand, out of 330 million.

Another annoyance is that parts of the media seems to have concluded that most gay men were, are, or want to be drag queens. Some do, true enough -- and doing it well takes a lot of effort, time, practice. More power to them, but (merciful god!) most gay men are not drag queens.

It is thus no surprise that media don't do a good job naming suramericanos, hispanics, and latinos.

BTW, Old English was as gendered as modern German. Most of the gendered forms were discarded starting around 1100 years ago, as Old English evolved into Middle English and as Middle English evolved into Modern English, about 600 years ago--give or take 15 minutes.

More on Latinx:

According to Pew Research, "About One-in-Four U.S. Hispanics Have Heard of Latinx, but of that 25%, just 3% Use It". This is a link to the Pew article

Pew Research is a good source of information on social behavior.

An example - I remember reading a non-fiction psychology book I had heard good things about. In the preface, the author indicated he had alternated using "she," and "he;" and "him" and "her" in different sections of the text — T Clark

A good case can be made for inclusion of feminine pronouns when the pronoun represents a group of people. English, as you know, long ago established the masculine 'man' and 'mankind', 'he' and 'his' as the collective plural. So much so, that if the text said "womankind" we guys would know we weren't included.

Using 'she' and 'her' can be a bit jarring: "She led her troop of tough marines into battle." Are marines invariably male? They were, unless things changed last week. But "She steered the company through a difficult recession." sounds OK. to me even if men are more commonly CEOs.

Your OP touches on many of my linguistic pet peeves.

A particularly egregious practice is replacing "pregnant woman" with "pregnant person". Why would they do that? Because men can get pregnant! Oh? I wasn't aware that men had ovaries or uteruses. Well, this alleged "man" did: She decided she was a man, changed her name and wardrobe, took some testosterone, and left his? her? reproductive apparatus intact. Then "he?" decided "she?" should have a child, so he or she, wtf, stopped taking testosterone, and a little later she (a definite she now) got pregnant by an actual man and 9 months later bore a child.

This miraculous birth was celebrated by 'constructivists' who think gender and sex is a social invention. This nonsense would be bad enough if 'child-bearing men' only appeared in marginal academic discussions, but no -- "pregnant person" is a usage of National Public Radio and the New York Times (maybe not the New York Post.)

Some people state that the "-'s" ending that makes a noun possessive, e.g. "Javi's tea," was an abbreviation of the pronoun "his," and that "his" was used in this way because women were all possessions of men. — javi2541997

The technical term for this theory is "bullshit". Let's get technical about 's.

's
suffix forming the genitive or possessive singular case of most Modern English nouns; its use gradually was extended in Middle English from Old English -es, the most common genitive inflection of masculine and neuter nouns (such as dæg "day," genitive dæges "day's"). The "-es" pronunciation is retained after a sibilant.
Old English also had genitives in -e, -re, -an, as well as "mutation-genitives" (boc "book," plural bec), and the -es form never was used in plural (where -a, -ra, -na prevailed), thus avoiding the verbal ambiguity of words like kings'.
In Middle English, both the possessive singular and the common plural forms were regularly spelled es, and when the e was dropped in pronunciation and from the written word, the habit grew up of writing an apostrophe in place of the lost e in the possessive singular to distinguish it from the plural. Later the apostrophe, which had come to be looked upon as the sign of the possessive, was carried over into the plural, but was written after the s to differentiate that form from the possessive singular. By a process of popular interpretation, the 's was supposed to be a contraction for his, and in some cases the his was actually "restored." [Samuel C. Earle, et al, "Sentences and their Elements," New York: Macmillan, 1911] — Online Etymology Dictionary

many users on the site are alone in rooms — Jack Cummins

One of the basic building blocks of human experience is loneliness. It is common and it is painful.

What good is sitting
Alone in your room?
Come hear the music play
Life is a cabaret, old chum
Come to the cabaret

I've done that often enough -- if one can call a run of the mill gay bar a "cabaret". It can help for a while, unless the bar's atmosphere is condensed alienation -- in which case, flee.

I didn't think Smith was a problem -- he didn't bother me.

Great post.

look around and notice it with others too. We simply don’t realize that so much of what we think we know, who we listen to, the company we keep, the jobs we do, and how we generally live our lives, is determined by factors beyond our control — the time and place you are born, your genes, your parents and upbringing, your culture and peers, early life experiences, education, etc. — Mikie

OR

I wonder to what extent the stuff we read and write about is simply a product of our class, our parents class and education, and our upbringings — but also by the levels of energy we possess, how strong our stomachs are, how anxious or stressed we are, whether we’re sleep deprived or not, if we carry with us much physical pain, etc. Very different philosophies (and lives) can come out of such simple things. — Mikie

Excellent! Either paragraph will do.

Our 'intellectual facilities' like to think they are above it all, not affected by all the good and bad stuff that compose our histories. Freud's point that "we are not masters of our own houses" is apropos here. It seems to take a long time for us to come to grips with all this.

I've been enjoying Peter Zeihan for the past few weeks, his speeches and hi book "The End of the World is just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization". It fits my pessimism, true, and it also does a nice job of explaining how advantages accrue or not to particular nations and regions. His thesis is that after WWII, the now-dominant USA offered to maintain peaceful world trade in exchange for cooperation (AKA, do what we tell you to do). The current regime of market globalization developed under this umbrella.

This regime is going to end as the US backs away from its near 80 year guarantee of safe trade on the high seas. Demographics is also going to kill it. Because world population expanded a lot after WWII there were plenty of cheap workers everywhere. That is over. Many countries, whole regions, now have large older populations and much smaller younger populations. Fewer people means smaller and shrinking economies. As an economic powerhouse, China is near the end of the road.

Point is, I'm primed to like that sort of thing.

Nobody planned to end up with too many old people and not enough young people. It happened. Some regions -- North America, France, Turkey, Argentina, New Zealand, and a few others don't have this problem--not by design, just good fortune.

Zeihan has a bunch of YouTube lectures. He's a good speaker, easy to grasp.

Maybe my response was too aggressive. I hadn't looked at the Huffington Post piece when I responded.

In New Age wisdom, this truth is easily accepted, but what is the evidence that backs this up? If the physical form is in fact an illusion, who are you having sex with? — Huffington Post

I don't know what your philosophical/intellectual background is. Sanskrit is not in mine and neither is Indian (Hindu?) thought. Fans of "New Age 'Wisdom'" seem prepared to believe a lot of flaky propositions. (The flakiness occurs during the casual borrowing of bits and pieces of other religious systems.).

Animal sensory ability--bacteria on up to us--perceives the actual physical world. We can dither about illusions but wolves and rabbits don't. Wolf/rabbit brains work pretty much the same way our do. When our existence is subjected to harsh conditions where survival is dicey, we don't worry about illusions either. We also grab the rabbit and eat it--raw, if necessary.

Once we have the leisure to roast domestic rabbits, we start spinning out interesting ideas about gods, illusion, Maya, the Trinity, Karma, and so on. Some of this thinking is not illusory, it's delusional. Our - perhaps - overly intellectual brains seem to need a certain amount of delusional thinking to put up with life. Otherwise, some people find reality terrifying.

Reality IS terrifying, I'm not terrified just right now, but drop me off in the middle of nowhere and I'd be scared shitless.

"Life" might be nothing more than an ongoing, self-esteeming story certain ephemeral, coprophagic arrangements of matter are telling themselves. — 180 Proof

Succinct summation!