Small Talk: Take It Outside! Carryover Conversations

[proserpina65]

19 hours ago, roamyn said:

My FIL elected no to have traditional treatment for his cancer and he was only 65.  He went through one cycle of chemo and felt his quality of life wasn't worth it.  We respected his decision and honestly he was able to do things with his family that chemo likely would've prevented.  Would he have beaten it or extended his life?  Possibly, he was stage 3.  But that was between him, my MIL and God, as he put it.  So your saying my FIL is to be mocked or talked down abt.

Hearing someone say they have no respect for those who chose differently, angers me.  No one knows what someone is going through spiritually, physically or mentally.  Instead of trashing them we should support them, love them, and member them fondly.

 

The difference is that your FIL TRIED one cycle of chemo.  He didn't just decide to cure his cancer with woo-woo medicine.  And I never said anyone should be mocked, only that I personally wouldn't respect a person who make the decision to forego real treatment entirely.

[Zella]

My grandfather has made that decision without trying treatment because he's 86 and doesn't want to undergo chemo or radiation at his age, especially after watching his brother suffer through it and die anyway. I don't think that makes him an idiot or undeserving of respect. All of his doctors said they understood and respected his decision, so I am not entirely sure why others can't either.

Edited October 23 by Zella

[Notabug]

15 minutes ago, Zella said:

My grandfather has made that decision without trying treatment because he's 86 and doesn't want to undergo chemo or radiation at his age, especially after watching his brother suffer through it and die anyway. I don't think that makes him an idiot or undeserving of respect. 

Many years ago, my grandfather did the same. It's one thing to examine all the options, including opting out of treatment, and decide that no treatment is the best option for that individual.  Certainly age, overall health, the rigorousness of the treatment can and should be considered.

In Ms Lewis' case, she was 47, some would say the prime of life.  She was active and healthy otherwise. Her doctors recommended a double mastectomy which she did not want; she doesn't say that radiation or chemotherapy were even on the table at that time, just surgery.  She rejected that in favor of designing her own 'treatment plan'.  While a double mastectomy is surely invasive, painful and has a recovery period; it is not chemotherapy or radiation and I think most rational 47 year olds would not find it unacceptable.

Here's a quote from her from the People article cited earlier:

Quote

“My plan at first was to get out excessive toxins in my body. I felt like my body is intelligent, I know that to be true. Our bodies are brilliantly made,” Lewis explained.

“I decided to keep my tumor and try to work it out of my body a different way,” she shared. “Looking back on that, I go, ‘You know what? Maybe I should have.’ “

So, she tried to 'work it' out of her body with diet and exercise and various other homeopathic remedies rather than have a mastectomy.  I don't see anything admirable about being so arrogant as to think that she could cure herself by deciding on her own what 'therapies' were right for her.

BTW, the article does mention that, at some point, she did take medication and radiation therapy along with her self-styled treatment plan; so it was apparently the mastectomies that were the deal breaker for her.  I expect she accepted those treatments after the tumor in her breast continued to grow despite her fantasy remedies and it was too late for a mastectomy to remove all the cancer.  Her body may be intelligent, but I am not so sure that she is.

Edited October 23 by Notabug

[Zella]

8 minutes ago, Notabug said:

Many years ago, my grandfather did the same. It's one thing to examine all the options, including opting out of treatment, and decide that no treatment is the best option for that individual.  Certainly age, overall health, the rigorousness of the treatment can and should be considered.

In Ms Lewis' case, she was 47, some would say the prime of life.  She was active and healthy otherwise. Her doctors recommended a double mastectomy which she did not want; she doesn't say that radiation or chemotherapy were even on the table at that time, just surgery.  She rejected that in favor of designing her own 'treatment plan'.  While a double mastectomy is surely invasive, painful and has a recovery period; it is not chemotherapy or radiation and I think most rational 47 year olds would not find it unacceptable.

Here's a quote from her from the People article cited earlier:

So, she tried to 'work it' out of her body with diet and exercise and various other homeopathic remedies rather than have a mastectomy.  I don't see anything admirable about being so arrogant as to think that she could cure herself by deciding on her own what 'therapies' were right for her.

BTW, the article does mention that, at some point, she did take medication and radiation therapy along with her self-styled treatment plan; so it was apparently the mastectomies that were the deal breaker for her.  I expect she accepted those treatments after the tumor in her breast continued to grow despite her fantasy remedies and it was too late for a mastectomy to remove all the cancer.  Her body may be intelligent, but I am not so sure that she is.

Yes I can understand that. I do think Lewis was foolish, but I also think it isn't really any of my business. It is her body, and she's the one who has to live with the consequences of that decision, not me.

I am just very uncomfortable with the direction this conversation has taken wherein several people (not you) apparently are wholesale condemning and insulting anyone who makes the decision to withgo treatment without even the most basic consideration of extenuating circumstances. I've usually found this forum to be better at having nuanced conversations than this. 

Edited October 23 by Zella

[Notabug]

5 hours ago, Zella said:

Yes I can understand that. I do think Lewis was foolish, but I also think it isn't really any of my business. It is her body, and she's the one who has to live with the consequences of that decision, not me.

 

In the case of Lewis, Suzanne Sommers, Dirk Benedict; it became the public's business when they announced they had cancer and used non-traditional therapies that were as good or better than the typical options.  This is especially true of Sommers and Benedict who lied by omission about their diagnosis and treatment.  Sommers had surgery and radiation before starting her herbal therapy but never mentioned it when she used her tale of beating cancer with peach pits to write multiple books and make millions of dollars.  Benedict claimed he had prostate cancer despite the fact he never actually had the growth biopsied and he was unusually young for such a diagnosis.  

If celebs don't want people forming opinions about them and their questionable life choices, the obvious answer is to not talk about those things in the press in the first place.  This is especially true for someone like Suzanne Sommers who very likely encouraged other women with breast cancer to forego traditional treatment while withholding vital information from them.  And, then, greedily profited from her lies.

Edited October 23 by Notabug

[Dimity]

24 minutes ago, Zella said:

My grandfather has made that decision without trying treatment because he's 86 and doesn't want to undergo chemo or radiation at his age, especially after watching his brother suffer through it and die anyway. I don't think that makes him an idiot or undeserving of respect. All of his doctors said they understood and respected his decision, so I am not entirely sure why others can't either.

My father is facing this right now.  He developed cancer last year that was treated by infusion therapy (I think that's what it was called) anyway far less harsh than chemo.  He was "cured" in that that form of cancer was eradicated but now he has been told he has leukemia but they are still testing to determine which kind.  I don't know if he is prepared to go the chemo/radiation route at this point and will, frankly, be surprised if he does.  But it will be his decision.  I should add I have been pleasantly surprised at how proactive his health care providers have been with treatment options given his age!  I admit I did somewhat assume that they would discourage treatments but that has not been the case, at least so far.

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, Dimity said:

My father is facing this right now.  He developed cancer last year that was treated by infusion therapy (I think that's what it was called) anyway far less harsh than chemo.  He was "cured" in that that form of cancer was eradicated but now he has been told he has leukemia but they are still testing to determine which kind.  I don't know if he is prepared to go the chemo/radiation route at this point and will, frankly, be surprised if he does.  But it will be his decision.  I should add I have been pleasantly surprised at how proactive his health care providers have been with treatment options given his age!  I admit I did somewhat assume that they would discourage treatments but that has not been the case, at least so far.

My grandfather was encouraged to consider immunotherapy, and I had thought that sounded like a good solution. But he nixed it because he basically said that at his age he didn't want to spend the rest of his life driving to the appointments for it. It would have been a 3-hour round trip, and I can understand why he didn't want to do that. It's hard for him to make the 40-minute round trip into our closest town now, let alone that. In his case, he had another form of cancer last year, and they were able to remove it all with surgery. 

[tearknee]

6 hours ago, Notabug said:

In the case of Lewis, Suzanne Sommers, Dirk Benedict; it became the public's business when they announced they had cancer and used non-traditional therapies that were as good or better than the typical options.  This is especially true of Sommers and Benedict who lied by omission about their diagnosis and treatment.  Sommers had surgery and radiation before starting her herbal therapy but never mentioned it when she used her tale of beating cancer with peach pits to write multiple books and make millions of dollars.  Benedict claimed he had prostate cancer despite the fact he never actually had the growth biopsied and he was unusually young for such a diagnosis.  

If celebs don't want people forming opinions about them and their questionable life choices, the obvious answer is to not talk about those things in the press in the first place.  This is especially true for someone like Suzanne Sommers who very likely encouraged other women with breast cancer to forego traditional treatment while withholding vital information from them.  And, then, greedily profited from her lies.

That is my point -- Somers, Lewis et al have cache with many because of their achievements and that means their asinine and despicable behavior could lead to death or misery for people who are awed and influenced by them

[Soapy Goddess]

14 hours ago, ABay said:

I did use to like him. I enjoyedChuck until the horrible ending, and I was happy when Levi showed up on the Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. My opinion of him has changed.

 

14 hours ago, Trini said:

I also used to count myself as a big fan of Levi; the turn he has taken recently (but it's been gradually leading to this) has been disappointing.  :(

 

This is what I don't understand. Nothing personal, but because Levi took a stance and some fans don't like it, they are no longer fans? And opinions have changed?

That would be like saying the opposing team should no longer listen to Beyonce and Bruce. Makes zero sense to me.

[peachmangosteen]

6 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

This is what I don't understand. Nothing personal, but because Levi took a stance and some fans don't like it, they are no longer fans? And opinions have changed?

I mean, yea. People stop being fans of someone for thousands of reasons, the fact that they hold some very hurtful and dangerous beliefs is one of the easiest reasons for that to understand imo.

[Palimelon]

Quote

That would be like saying the opposing team should no longer listen to Beyonce and Bruce. Makes zero sense to me.

I mean, it's almost like buying cans of beer or Barbie dolls and destroying them, or boycotting certain department stores...

[peachmangosteen]

Not really. People who do that are usually mad because those companies put out the bare minimum statement that they care about people which makes that kind of thing even more ridiculous. Deciding you don't want to be a fan of a celeb who, again, holds very dangerous beliefs isn't really similar.

Edited October 28 by peachmangosteen

[AgathaC]

1 hour ago, peachmangosteen said:

I mean, yea. People stop being fans of someone for thousands of reasons, the fact that they hold some very hurtful and dangerous beliefs is one of the easiest reasons for that to understand imo.

Exactly. There have been plenty of celebrities over the years I’ve disagreed with and it didn’t impact my thoughts or feelings. No issue with people thinking differently than I do. But if they do or say things that are truly offensive or dangerous, that’s a different issue and, yeah, I’ll probably look elsewhere for entertainment.

[Trini]

2 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

9 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

This is what I don't understand. Nothing personal, but because Levi took a stance and some fans don't like it, they are no longer fans? And opinions have changed?

I mean, yea. People stop being fans of someone for thousands of reasons, the fact that they hold some very hurtful and dangerous beliefs is one of the easiest reasons for that to understand imo.

Also, it's not like he was a personal friend of mine, so....

[Palimelon]

Quote

Not really. People who do that are usually mad because those companies put out the bare minimum statement that they care about people which makes that kind of thing even more ridiculous.

Actually the ones who are mad are mad because these companies are promoting something which they find offensive, whether a product, a certain flag with too many colors on it, a collaboration with someone whose "lifestyle" they find offensive, empowerment for certain groups, etc.

So it really is a case of really.

Quote

There have been plenty of celebrities over the years I’ve disagreed with and it didn’t impact my thoughts or feelings. No issue with people thinking differently than I do. But if they do or say things that are truly offensive or dangerous, that’s a different issue and, yeah, I’ll probably look elsewhere for entertainment.

I suppose it depends what metrics one uses when considering what is offensive and/or dangerous.

 

[Dimity]

30 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

I suppose it depends what metrics one uses when considering what is offensive and/or dangerous.

Exactly.  Politics being different from mine don't factor into it for the most part. What tips the scale for me is when they are using their access to the public ear to spread conspiracy theories and other forms of misinformation, in Levi's case specifically, misinformation about vaccines.  There are a number of other celebrities who are now on "my list" because of this.

[peachmangosteen]

6 minutes ago, Dimity said:

Politics being different from mine don't factor into it for the most part.

It kind of has to for me since it tells me how people view their fellow human beings.

[peachmangosteen]

1 hour ago, Palimelon said:

Actually the ones who are mad are mad because these companies are promoting something which they find offensive, whether a product, a certain flag with too many colors on it, a collaboration with someone whose "lifestyle" they find offensive, empowerment for certain groups, etc.

Choosing to not support someone because they think gay people/women/minorities/etc. should have rights or because they are one of those people is not akin to choosing not to support someone who is spreading dangerous misinformation that can literally get people killed.

Edited October 28 by peachmangosteen

[proserpina65]

16 hours ago, Affogato said:

Honestly, mr Levi is not (as far as I know) an ax murderer. He happens to be someone who has several opinions that are different than mine and exercises his right to express them.

He's not an ax-murderer but he is someone who spouts conspiracy theories which do hurt people, so he is in error.

10 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

This is what I don't understand. Nothing personal, but because Levi took a stance and some fans don't like it, they are no longer fans? And opinions have changed?

I stop being a fan of any anti-vaxxer because the crap they spew is dangerous.

1 hour ago, Palimelon said:

I suppose it depends what metrics one uses when considering what is offensive and/or dangerous.

Pushing anti-vax crap and related conspiracy theories absolutely IS dangerous.

[Affogato]

2 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

He's not an ax-murderer but he is someone who spouts conspiracy theories which do hurt people, so he is in error.

I stop being a fan of any anti-vaxxer because the crap they spew is dangerous.

More than one thing going on here.  One is that you change people’s minds by empathizing with them.  Yes, it can be scary, you say, i too can be frightened to put a new thing into my child’s body, i can see why you don’t want to lose your job in coal mining. You can’t change their minds by spitting on their values and fears. Another issue is that, if Trump is a mainstream political candidate backed by one of the parties, many of these beliefs are nainstream beliefs. Backing away, as if they are in an alternate and distasteful universe will not make them go away. 

i get it, I have trouble with some people and it taints their work for me. But increasingly two sides of the country refusing to engage, well, is what terrifies me most. 

[proserpina65]

Just now, Affogato said:

More than one thing going on here.  One is that you change people’s minds by empathizing with them.  Yes, it can be scary, you say, i too can be frightened to put a new thing into my child’s body, i can see why you don’t want to lose your job in coal mining. You can’t change their minds by spitting on their values and fears. Another issue is that, if Trump is a mainstream political candidate backed by one of the parties, many of these beliefs are nainstream beliefs. Backing away, as if they are in an alternate and distasteful universe will not make them go away. 

i get it, I have trouble with some people and it taints their work for me. But increasingly two sides of the country refusing to engage, well, is what terrifies me most. 

Anti-vax nuts are rarely reachable, and they do real harm to others in the meantime.  To me, that's unforgivable.

[bluegirl147]

1 hour ago, Dimity said:

Politics being different from mine don't factor into it for the most part.

What @peachmangosteen said.

1 hour ago, peachmangosteen said:

It kind of has to for me since it tells me how people view their fellow human beings.

It wasn't always like this but this is now the world we live in. I think everyone should be treated equally and there are people who don't agree with that.

1 hour ago, Palimelon said:

I suppose it depends what metrics one uses when considering what is offensive and/or dangerous.

Racism, misogyny and homophobia are dealbreakers for me.  Anti vax.  Of course sex crimes goes without saying.  If someone has different political beliefs than me and if those beliefs aren't  based on hatred I can continue to enjoy their work.  But those people are becoming few and far between. 

[Palimelon]

Quote

Pushing anti-vax crap and related conspiracy theories absolutely IS dangerous.

I never said it wasn't.

Quote

Choosing to not support someone because they think gay people/women/minorities/etc. should have rights or because they are one of those people is not akin to choosing not to support someone who is spreading dangerous misinformation that can literally get people killed.

Which is what I was saying. I was responding to this post:

Quote

This is what I don't understand. Nothing personal, but because Levi took a stance and some fans don't like it, they are no longer fans? And opinions have changed?

That would be like saying the opposing team should no longer listen to Beyonce and Bruce. Makes zero sense to me.

And you seem to have completely misread what I was saying.

[Affogato]

49 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Anti-vax nuts are rarely reachable, and they do real harm to others in the meantime.  To me, that's unforgivable.

Yes, but presumably the serious and/or sincere ones feel the vaccinations do actual harm. And probably feel you aren’t reachable. This is not the way out of the maze. 
 

Look, I’ve never had a domino's or Chick-fil-A meal, but i do believe conversation can help. 

[peachmangosteen]

2 hours ago, Affogato said:

Yes, but presumably the serious and/or sincere ones feel the vaccinations do actual harm. And probably feel you aren’t reachable. This is not the way out of the maze.

But they're actually wrong so they're the ones that need to become better educated. But Zachary Levi is so far down the insane hole that he will likely never see what's real.

Edited October 28 by peachmangosteen

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, ABay said:

I don't need to justify my liking or disliking a celebrity, or anyone else, here.

In the past I've stopped being a fan of a celeb because I didn't like that they cut their hair or just grew out of liking them, so, yeah, no justification needed. It's not like we're trying to have the celebs we don't like anymore killed or anything. I am pretty sure most of them can survive losing a few fans now and then. 

While I do worry about celebs saying possibly harmful things, I then remember learning about natural selection. If you're stupid enough to not get vaccinated, or not get proper medical care because some person you watch play make believe on tele, or sing songs on stage tells you it's bad, you're probably going to jump off a bridge after someone eventually anyway. 

In other words, probably not best to take any serious advice from someone who performs for a living. Trying to get them to shut up about topics far beyond their paygrade is like trying to get the rain to stop being wet. Most performers seem to have an unstoppable need to say every little thought that pops into their heads. 

 

[Jaded]

The Levi stuff finally made it here I see.  I kept meaning to post about it then I'd forget to. I never really paid attention to his offscreen behavior until the news that he and his ex-wife were getting a divorce. They had gotten married in June of 2014 and she filed for divorce the following year in April. I guess it was the filing where she said the date of separation was Dec. of 2014. I had to look at her wiki to see which years it all happened in. Something felt really weird there because of the good guy image he still had at the time. The weirdness feeling was about him and not her though.

Then news about the post he made on social media criticizing one of the companies who provided covid vaccines got called out. That's when I realized that weird feeling I got about him wasn't wrong. I never saw the last season of CHUCK. My intention to do so in the future got scrapped after that tweet. Someone upthread said that the finale sucked which I have no trouble believing.

I was just reading his wiki too and saw that he's mentioned Jordan Peterson in a positive way at least once. When people mention him alarm bells usually go off in my head. What Peterson has said about women is disgusting, revolting, sexist and whatever other words can be used to describe someone like him. What's sad and potentially dangerous is how many men take Peterson and his views seriously. 

Edited October 28 by Jaded
Clarification

[Annber03]

3 hours ago, Affogato said:

Look, I’ve never had a domino's or Chick-fil-A meal, but i do believe conversation can help. 

Conversation is great and can indeed help, but it's hard to do that when one side is operating in a totally different alternate univers and absolutely refuses to acknowledge or accept basic, proven facts. In those cases, it's not even so much that people won't reach out to talk to someone like that, ti's that they literally CAN'T, because there's no real starting point for a conversation to begin. 

But yeah, echoing others here -if you* think certain groups of people don't deserve basic civil and human rights, if you spew conspiracy theory nonsense, then I'm not interested in anything else you say or do. 

*(General "you".)

[Affogato]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

In the past I've stopped being a fan of a celeb because I didn't like that they cut their hair or just grew out of liking them, so, yeah, no justification needed. It's not like we're trying to have the celebs we don't like anymore killed or anything. I am pretty sure most of them can survive losing a few fans now and then. 

While I do worry about celebs saying possibly harmful things, I then remember learning about natural selection. If you're stupid enough to not get vaccinated, or not get proper medical care because some person you watch play make believe on tele, or sing songs on stage tells you it's bad, you're probably going to jump off a bridge after someone eventually anyway. 

In other words, probably not best to take any serious advice from someone who performs for a living. Trying to get them to shut up about topics far beyond their paygrade is like trying to get the rain to stop being wet. Most performers seem to have an unstoppable need to say every little thought that pops into their heads. 

 

If they are successful they get enabled by the people around them. Fans hang on their words. It is also likely that many already have a lot of motivation to project themselves as winners, although they may not feel that way, as people working in a business that involves a lot of rejection. A lot of things like travel and  episodic work and separations must make relationships difficult. Being in a fishbowl doesn’t help. Any random crowd on a tram likely contains abusers, racists, etc. pretty common. 

Edited October 28 by Affogato

[Makai]

2 hours ago, Jaded said:

I never really paid attention to his offscreen behavior until the news that he and his ex-wife were getting a divorce. They had gotten married in June of 2014 and she filed for divorce the following year in April. I guess it was the filing where she said the date of separation was Dec. of 2014. I had to look at her wiki to see which years it all happened in. Something felt really weird there because of the good guy image he still had at the time. The weirdness feeling was about him and not her though.

That was weird. 

2 hours ago, Jaded said:

. I never saw the last season of CHUCK.

That is 100% to right way to watch Chuck. It should have ended with the season 4 finale. 

 

5 hours ago, Affogato said:

Yes, but presumably the serious and/or sincere ones feel the vaccinations do actual harm. And probably feel you aren’t reachable. This is not the way out of the maze. 

Generally, I have found trying to talk to people like Levi to be like talking to flat earthers. The goalposts constantly move and they don’t give a shit about the actual science.

Levi was just in the news ranting about vaccine mandates and for saying that a Broadway star who had cancer died from the Covid vaccine. 

[Soapy Goddess]

8 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

In other words, probably not best to take any serious advice from someone who performs for a living. Trying to get them to shut up about topics far beyond their paygrade is like trying to get the rain to stop being wet. Most performers seem to have an unstoppable need to say every little thought that pops into their heads. 

Yes, if only celebrities didn't feel the need to spread their political and/or personal beliefs, our nation wouldn't be at each others throats. IOW, leave the politics up to the politicians. Let them tell us about their beliefs and what they intend to do to make life better for ALL of us.

7 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Conversation is great and can indeed help, but it's hard to do that when one side is operating in a totally different alternate univers and absolutely refuses to acknowledge or accept basic, proven facts. In those cases, it's not even so much that people won't reach out to talk to someone like that, ti's that they literally CAN'T, because there's no real starting point for a conversation to begin. 

Agree, Annber...but it works both ways. 

[Annber03]

6 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Agree, Annber...but it works both ways. 

Not exactly, no. Not when one side is operating on basic, provable facts and the other is...not. 

[Palimelon]

Quote

Yes, if only celebrities didn't feel the need to spread their political and/or personal beliefs, our nation wouldn't be at each others throats. IOW, leave the politics up to the politicians. Let them tell us about their beliefs and what they intend to do to make life better for ALL of us.

I really don't think celebrities are the reason why the US is so divided these days. Or even for the last 3 decades or more.

[Notabug]

55 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

I really don't think celebrities are the reason why the US is so divided these days. Or even for the last 3 decades or more.

Celebrities are the least of the problem.  The real problem is the lack of civility and the demonizing of those who disagree and this is coming from the top.  As is the insistence that choosing not to believe proven facts because they don't fit one's personal convenience or goals is a perfectly reasonable option.  Doesn't matter how many times someone disagrees with it; COVID was not a hoax, real people died by the thousands/millions during the pandemic and it would've been a lot worse without the precautions and the vaccine works while horse dewormers do not.

Edited October 29 by Notabug

[bluegirl147]

8 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Yes, if only celebrities didn't feel the need to spread their political and/or personal beliefs, our nation wouldn't be at each others throats. IOW, leave the politics up to the politicians. Let them tell us about their beliefs and what they intend to do to make life better for ALL of us.

I don't think being a celebrity should mean you shouldn't express your beliefs.  As was mentioned above someone's beliefs can tell you a lot about them.  And I for one would like to know so I can decide if I want to spend time and money on someone. 

[Dimity]

8 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

IOW, leave the politics up to the politicians.

How does one define a politician?  The PM of my country was a teacher by training.  In your country Reagan was an actor.   

[Notabug]

48 minutes ago, Dimity said:

How does one define a politician?  The PM of my country was a teacher by training.  In your country Reagan was an actor.   

We also have a game show host running in the current election.

[tearknee]

Yeah, that's why recently qualified teachers in their 20s should not be teaching high school.

[Mrsmaul2021]

On 10/26/2024 at 8:53 AM, merylinkid said:

It's easy when you have set decorators doing the work for you.  

This every holiday on tv.   Halloween, perfectly carved pumpkins going down the steps or along both sides of the driveway, etc.  

 

 

I had to find your comment. My nieces and nephews carved pumpkins and bless their hearts 🤣.  It looked like they simply poked holes in the pumpkins 

[Raja]

30 minutes ago, tearknee said:

Yeah, that's why recently qualified teachers in their 20s should not be teaching high school.

The problem becomes that they are more likely to be overwhelmed and quit if put in middle schools

[tearknee]

Catch-22?

[merylinkid]

4 hours ago, Mrsmaul2021 said:

 

 

I had to find your comment. My nieces and nephews carved pumpkins and bless their hearts 🤣.  It looked like they simply poked holes in the pumpkins 

I have great plans for my pumpkins.  Then I actually insert the knife in the pumpkin...

[Bastet]

5 hours ago, Mrsmaul2021 said:

My nieces and nephews carved pumpkins and bless their hearts 🤣.  It looked like they simply poked holes in the pumpkins 

Mine was the same every year, and took only slightly more skill -- round eyes, triangle nose, and snaggletoothed mouth.  I enjoyed removing the mouth in once piece, but that's as challenging as it got.  (To be fair, I only carved pumpkins in elementary school; it's not like I was 15 and still churning out basic shit.  But, to continue to be fair, I do well to draw a stick figure, so I probably would have still been doing the same at 15.)

Edited October 30 by Bastet

[Soapy Goddess]

19 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Not exactly, no. Not when one side is operating on basic, provable facts and the other is...not. 

Agree to disagree. The other side is not totally pure and devoid of mistruths.

18 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I really don't think celebrities are the reason why the US is so divided these days. Or even for the last 3 decades or more.

I never said celebrities were the only reason!  All I said was they should keep their politics to themselves. 

[Soapy Goddess]

17 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

I don't think being a celebrity should mean you shouldn't express your beliefs.  As was mentioned above someone's beliefs can tell you a lot about them.  And I for one would like to know so I can decide if I want to spend time and money on someone. 

Well, I don't base my decisions on a celebrity's choice or judgement. I have a mind of my own and prefer to make decisions based on what is best for me.

I don't believe one singular choice tells me all I need to know about someone's character. People disagree on many subjects all the time. Doesn't mean I will avoid that person for the rest of their life. 

 

[Soapy Goddess]

17 hours ago, Dimity said:

How does one define a politician?  The PM of my country was a teacher by training.  In your country Reagan was an actor.   

When someone runs for a political office, by definition they are a politician (i.e. one actively involved in politics). 

Yes, Reagan was an actor...and so was Sonny Bono, among others. Once they hold political office, they become politicians.

[Palimelon]

Quote

I never said celebrities were the only reason!  All I said was they should keep their politics to themselves. 

Why?

[Soapy Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Why?

Because I couldn't less what they think. I don't tune into their TV show or watch their concert for their politics. Nor do I care to hear about their political beliefs during an awards acceptance speech. 

[Palimelon]

You may not, but others might.

[Soapy Goddess]

12 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

You may not, but others might.

Choosing to be solely influenced by a celebrity's choice and/or opinion is beyond my comprehension.