Nepenthe

Nepenthe, 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

Heart failure simultaneously overloads the kidneys while starving them of oxygen.
The two are related regularly enough that there are billing codes specifically for combination heart/kidney disease, and the ICD-10 directs users to assume that kidney failure is caused by hypertension if both are present, unless the provided documentation specifically states that it isn't.

It's not always the case; there are other types of failure, etc. But when both (or all) are present in the same patient, it's quite literally the default to assume the one is the fault of the rest.

As you said, I wouldn't claim to make 100% accurate guesses here without ever knowing anything about this man's actual condition, but I would hazard a guess that it was the other way around and the same heart that eventually gave out was the reason he needed the transplant in the first place, Which is interesting, but it does make it pretty bad click bait.

@driving_crooner

Nepenthe, 10 days ago

How frustrating would it be right now, to be an alien trying to convince people you're an alien, but your physical form is that of a fursuit.

Nepenthe, 10 days ago

Normally, an image would have already been posted of the cover art for Bear by Marian Engel, and though it doesn't apply here, there's always someone looking out for our needs

Nepenthe, 10 days ago

In the big cities? Dalls? Austin? Nah. People might look at you weird.
Anywhere else? ...Might have to give some killjoy 15min to an hour to call the cops

Nepenthe, 11 days ago (edited 11 days ago)

Because...men....make up ~80% of all murder victims, in addition to 90% of the perpetrators? According to the UN's 2019 homicide study?

That's why men fall into frothing inceldom and whatever Andrew Tate is doing? Because they share statistically just as much risk regarding other men as women face from men, just for a predominantly different crime?

Because that's why they need to be choosing the bear, and that just doesn't sound right...

Nepenthe, 10 days ago (edited 9 days ago)

If the bear analogy was about statistics, they'd choose the human because statistically speaking, many, many more people are helpful than harmful. Especially compared to a dangerous wild animal.

By its nature, there can't be an "if." Any conversation based around assessed probability of violence will at some point necessarily revolve around violence statistics. One cannot make an accurate decision otherwise, and it would cease to be any sort of statement at all. Would you rather choose between gleeps or glorps.

You're not incorrect in the other points you're making. I highly appreciate them, they're well said, and you come off like you've given this considerable thought and attention. But the perception is there because it's also a reality. The stories everyone has or knows someone who has are not fairy tales far away wherever they film the news and, statistically speaking, a random bear in the vicinity is leagues more predictable than a human, less aggressive as a result, and less dangerous should it become aggressive on account of the possibility of rape and torture.

Given the choice -- while it isn't nearly as likely from an animal that doesn't know what humans are and mostly wants to avoid the whole mess as much as I do if allowed -- I would also elect to be killed by the bear. That should be giving people pause and encourage them to reflect on the current dynamic and what can be done to fix it, and I would charitably like to think that it does. I've also met people before and they tend to dig in when they hear things they don't already agree with instead of becoming as curious as they should, but I'd like to think that it does, at least for one person.

The way one deals with bears does not work for men, because there IS no reliable way to deal with men should they turn aggressive. Not even pepper spray, if they've experienced it before or are just particularly plucky that day. You're supposed to run afterwards because your assailant can and will fight through it in much the same way a bear will not. I learned both these facts at about the same age, and I'm angry about that, and I'm angrier that there's not a women in my family, or even a woman that I know, that hasn't been assaulted at least once and/or subsequently murdered.

Your standing argument about the whole deal, if I understand it, boils down to, "Yes, but how many men didn't rape you when they could have? Talking about your experiences is making them more likely to choose that path themselves out of insult, but probably if you're nice enough they'll rape you less." ...And I'm hoping you can see how that thought process sounds insultingly unhinged as well as being a little bit to the left of the point.

In painting it as only an overactive perception, you don't sound in my opinion like you think it's as pervasive as it actually is, or that it should be the center of the problem. Your trick of the light is my maternal grandmother, whose crime scene got me interested in forensics. My mom. Her friend, killed after the divorce went through. My best friend when she was eight. Me.

I already know the risks, and I usually don't get a say in whether I'm going to experience them. And yet, whenever I or anyone else ask why we as a society consider it completely normal to sell and carry Man Spray, more men than one would hope are going, "Violence? What violence? What you need to do is let your guard down around me specifically. I don't like it. You wouldn't want to keep making me upset."

Nepenthe, 10 days ago (edited 9 days ago)

In regards to Andrew Tate, my understanding is his followers flock to him (and similar ideologies) because he makes them feel like they belong somewhere, gives them a checklist to follow defining what success looks like, and someone to blame. His draw is the utter blowing emotional wasteland men are trapped in, still expected to be soulless robotic workers but bereft of the worth their role as Man Of The House used to have.

The role a lot of them were raised to fill doesn't exist anymore. A lot the things they were taught to value, women can provide for themselves if they even want those things at all. Can't ask for help with the crushing weight of it, because they either fear being or absolutely have been rejected for daring to try. Can't carry it alone, you'll shoot yourself eventually.

Their needs are very real, and a severe problem. The way they've tried to cure it isn't even a mistake, it's just that the group they turned to for belonging happened to be predatory.

That said, the statement, "Women are so used to being assaulted and beaten to death that they lowkey never stop scanning for threats and would like to know: what if y'all stopped that?" and the statement, "men are so isolated and emotionally under-served that they buy muscle cars and perhaps tiki torches about it" are still two very different things. I'd say one of those groups isn't meeting with violence nearly as often as the other, but they are. That's the problem.

What if we looked at why people keep picking the bear and took stock of what needs to be done? No... we'll just have more rage again. We had rage for dinner last night.