The longer one spends on Lemmy the more untreated mental illness one finds.

It says why in the article. They sat cross-legged and chewed on the end of rushes to make a brush.

I don’t know for sure, but I believe it’s a context issue.

There’s nothing wrong with discussing the size and consistency of my bowel movements with my doctor, but it’s probably not OK for me to do that with a stranger on the bus.

Bro, do you have any idea how many undesirables we can eliminate?

/S

I don’t know the ins and outs of your marriage or how you two communicate, so take what I’m saying with a grain of salt and tailor it to fit your needs.

When you approach the issue at face value (“I really hate the haircut”) it’s easy and even reasonable for her to sort of short circuit the discussion and default to saying that it’s just hair or that her appearance is her decision. While that’s all true enough, it overlooks the core issues and the feelings that motivated you to put up a stink about it in the first place. Basically, she handily addressed the “symptom” of the argument without tackling the “disease”.

It’s impossible for me to know, but there’s a pretty high probability that this boils down to a miscommunication, albeit a very serious one. There’s one side of the spectrum where you completely failed to identify and communicate your feelings, and another side of the spectrum where she was completely unable to look beyond the surface of the issue and consider your feelings. I’m not a gambling man, but I’d bet just about anything that the truth is somewhere in the middle and not at either extreme.

Based on what you’ve said in your post and comments it seems like you’re already reflecting and trying to understand your own feelings and motivations which is the absolute best thing you can do. Once you feel like you’ve got a handle on that, try to look at your relationship and this disagreement in particular through an objective lens. Look at it like a dispassionate outside observer. Analyze it to see where both of you made mistakes in your communication.

Once you’ve done all that, start discussing things as neutrally as possible. Avoid accusation or anything that could be interpreted that way. Make it clear that the problems are with attraction, compromise, and consideration in the marriage.

A woman’s right to make decisions about her own appearance can be a thorny topic, and can lead to the “short circuiting” that drove you to make this post in the first place. Keep the discussion pointed decidedly away from her haircut and focused on feelings and needs in a marriage. Use examples like her preferences for your facial hair or rip off my eyebrows example wholesale.

Recognize and validate her feelings and her right to control over her own body, but also defend your feelings and a right to love and consideration in your marriage. Let her know how much you care about her and about your relationship together, and that the reason you want to feel attracted to her is because you love her and know that feeling that way will help keep you two close.

It’s not just hair, it attraction in a marriage.

We’re talking about a major voluntary change to a person’s appearance made repeatedly despite their spouse’s objections. While the wife is absolutely free to do whatever, the lack of consideration speaks volumes.

Imagine if he shaved off his eyebrows off and his wife said he looked weird like that. He likes it, she hates it and finds it ugly. He absolutely, undeniably has the right to keep his eyebrows bare as a baby’s bottom.

In our hypothetical, him not trying to make a compromise (like trimming his eyebrows halfway or tweezing them) means that he’s totally OK with his spouse finding him repulsive and is not willing to budge an inch for her sake. He’s going to do what he wants, her feelings of attraction towards her spouse are simply unimportant to him.

Mr. Calhoun?

No, lung infection.

Died after two weeks in the ICU fighting pneumonia and MRSA.

A lot of you’re an edgy teenager on the internet.

Nothing if you’re a well adjusted adult.

Yeah, but if everyone is really cool about it maybe we can all pretend it didn’t happen.

I am outraged that - let me check my notes - the EIC of The Verge has published an article partially generated by AI.

And then everyone clapped

Only at step 3 do we become Saddam Hussein.

Typically it says “cellulose”.

https://www.cornucopia.org/2017/11/brief-history-wood-pulp-food/#:~:text=Sawdust usually contains about 40,more regular but that's it.

There’s a little of both in play here.

First, the whole black and white part of the illustration is a neck flap that may or may not have existed. It makes the neck look super thick, but it was just the artist’s interpretation.

Second, penguins. Pterosaurs have big, hollow heads and skeletons that look like they should have flown. The same can be said of penguins.

Hello there.

Why do you sandblast in a baby box?

For real. It’s like a living version of the principal Skinner meme.

“Multiple people are bringing cohesive arguments against my viewpoint? They must be sick puppets.”

Dude, what the actual fuck is your malfunction?

Yes, wanting factual, unbiased journalism truly is the greatest form of simping.

You clearly didn’t read the tail end of my original comment. Fabricated grievances dilute genuine ones. This publication is crying wolf. This makes people pay less attention when news breaks about an actual fuckup.