I like it, very succinct way to get the point across.

That’s the way these things have always gone and probably always will. Retarded, imbecile, idiot, these were all effectively clinical terms (or whatever best approximated clinical practice in their eras) - they didn’t hold an insulting intention initially. People co-opted the terms to make fun of each other, as we do, and so professionals had to shift the clinical vocabulary so they weren’t using commonly hurled insults when discussing patients. And that means new words people can use to make fun of each other, yay! Which of course they did, necessitating another rotation. Pretty hilarious if you ask me.

The most recent example in my own life - my wife is in her mid 30s, and is pregnant - some medical professionals call this a “geriatric pregnancy”! But because some folks are getting offended by that term, they’re starting to use “advanced maternal age pregnancy”. Bit of a mouthful, I think they’ll get to keep that one.

Anyway. Carlin had a great bit on this phenomena, he’s the one who pointed it out to me.

I wonder about that too. For context, I’ve done it, and I wouldn’t do it again without a harness and clipping in. It’s just such a trivially easy thing to do to protect yourself and the cables are not at all adequate for safety.

For me, I didn’t use one because I didn’t realize I’d want it. I knew a ton of people do it daily, knew there wasn’t a lot of discussion or use of harnesses, and I assumed I’d agree with everyone else. And I think for a lot of others there’s that element, plus not even really knowing how easy it is to use one. You certainly are stuck with your decision once you finally make it to the cables, lol.

Not excusing the decision-making that led to this - but I’ve noticed myself that the scarcity of permits for some of these legendary hikes absolutely impacts decision-making. If this has been on your list for years, and you really don’t know when you’ll get another shot, you’ll be more willing to take risks you normally wouldn’t.

The permits need to be limited of course, I’m not suggesting otherwise. The only real solution here is internal. One good idea for situations where you may have to make a decision while emotional is to establish the go/no-go criteria before the emotions hit.

So for example, if pursuing hikes that have killed the unwary time and again, set some rules for when and why you ditch before you ever get the permit. Of course, then you have to stick with that pre-made decision for it to work.

I think another factor about some of these is how many regular (as in, not-outdoor-athlete) people do them every day. It gives an illusion of safety. I’ve done this hike - I’m a former rock climber, very comfortable with heights and exposure, and the cables felt recklessly unsafe to me. I really can’t believe more people don’t fall, and I’d recommend everyone use a harness and clip themselves to the cables.

Honestly between those two factors, the way our brains respond to scarcity / FOMO, and the illusion of safety caused by so much traffic…I think there are many people who believe they’d make a better call who would’ve actually done the same when it came down to it.

That’s interesting and I hadn’t realized. It’s not surprising, I guess, we people tend to latch onto the salacious bits (see the joke about “if you build 100 bridges do they call you Johnny the bridge builder?..”). And frankly “people like to dress up as animals and LARP as them” (and apologies if that’s overly reductive to someone) just isn’t all that interesting lol, like any other hobby I don’t happen to be into.

Bit about the dentists makes perfect sense, haha. Bet the lawyers are about the same.

LOL just a devoted nerddom out here making even the Olympic Village look like a buncha prudes by comparison, and no one knows because the participants are too busy fucking to communicate with the outside world.

Wait, this is news to me. My understanding was that it began as effectively a kink with its associated community. Like, I think I recall it being pretty much strictly sexual in every way I heard of it for a long time. And then lately I see that it’s more broad than that - the most clear example I have is when my kiddo’s friend recently named it as one of the cliched “kid archetypes” at their high school, e.g. jock/goth/furry/etc. Maybe it was just never specifically sexual or maybe it’s been through some evolutions.

I’m not ready to recommend others become gun owners, that’s too personal a decision, but I do think it’s unwise for only one side of a major political rift (manufactured / artificially maintained as it may be) to be well armed. Especially when law enforcement is also overwhelmingly on that same political side that’s already well armed. Especially when that same political side is the source of the folks who said “we better storm the capital to make sure elections turn out how we think they should”.

I’m okay with brief compulsory service, in favor of “sensible gun laws”, and firmly against any approach to full disarmament at present - that solution could only be remotely feasible after maybe a full generation where firearm ownership was not a hot button issue. Any approach to disarmament in the US without a long quiet period would be received as hostile action by ~half of the country and rejected categorically, along with any good will on other issues. We need to drop that and find people to elect who will cooperate on issues of broad popularity.

Ah, those are reasonable points of view to me. I think responsible gun ownership is fairly straightforward and the statistics look that way because of the extremely irresponsible folks who don’t take it seriously, and because suicide is usually included. Proper gun safety really only requires diligently following a few simple rules, make those consistently followed - habitual - and the additional risk drops to pretty close to zero.

But I concede that owning a gun does - at again just a definitional level - create a path of escalation which is almost always inappropriate to pursue, which is not available without that gun, and that’s inherently risky too. It’s not a decision to be taken lightheartedly, but we all face risk at varying degrees and have to make our own decisions about what are good and bad tradeoffs there.

There are a lot of folks (of all political persuasion, which is not to say it’s evenly distributed at all) who are definitely LARPing, and I think their idiot rhetoric is foolish and potentially harmful. I just think the quiet gun-owning left shouldn’t be automatically associated with that group, and if I remember the original comment right, I don’t think the poster indicated any hidden desire for violence.

I agree that we should be discussing and insisting on action for way more substantive and impactful stuff, guns are a ridiculous wedge issue that will never be “resolved”, and our limited time is definitely better spent trying to force improvements that would benefit and be popular with a majority of people.

You seem to be taking an “either / or” approach here. In my opinion the left should do everything possible to avoid violence, and also own guns in case these efforts are unsuccessful. It doesn’t need to be one or the other.

It’s really kind of a matter of definitions to me. In my view, there exist situations where a firearm is about the only way to prevent super bad outcomes for myself. Those situations are uncommon, there are many good ways to avoid them usually, and I hope to never find myself in one. But by definition, if I find myself in a situation like that, having a firearm available is the difference between having agency and having none.

Some people feel that the likelihood of such a scenario is so small that it’s a bad idea to prepare for it. Maybe this is how you feel? I do understand that point of view, I simply disagree. I don’t really understand points of view that seem to argue there is no scenario where firearms are useful, or that we’re magically “past that” as a society (and to be clear, I’m not sure you’re taking that stance). To take one example, just look at the response to Hurricane Katrina as an example of how flimsy our law and order really is. Once a situation is bad enough to overwhelm the existing structures we have in place, all bets are off and rules for behavior evaporate. We’ve seen this happen, in our country, in our lifetimes, more than once. I don’t understand the derision - why eye roll?

Excellent work, and thank you for sharing. What a win! I’m always heartened to hear about straightforward open source wins against leeches 👍